
GPO 



©he gii$ltoi> ^UAoth, i^Muve^, 1886 



THE 



PHILOSOPHY 



OF 



THE SUPERNATURAL 



BY 



W7 e/platt, d. d., ll. d. 

RECTOR OF ST. PAUL'S CHURCH 
ROCHESTER, N. Y. 



NEW YORK 

E. P. BUTTON & COMPANY | 

31 WEST TWENTY-THIRD ST. ; 

1886. J 



J 






Copyright 
W. H. PLATT 

1886 






1 



- t e^ 



THE BISHOP PADDOCK LECTURES. 



In the summer of the year 1880, George A. Jarvis of 
Brooklyn, N. Y., moved by his sense of the great good which 
might thereby accrue to the cause of Christ and to the 
Church, of which he was an ever grateful member, gave to 
the General Theological Seminary of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church certain securities exceeding in value eleven 
thousand dollars for the foundation and maintenance of a 
Lectureship in said Seminary. 

Out of love to a former Pastor and enduring friend, the 
Rt. Rev. Benjamin Henry Paddock, D.D., Bishop of Massa- 
chusetts, he named his Foundation " The Bishop Paddock 
Lectureship." 

The deed of trust declares that : 

" The subjects of the Lectures shall be such as appertain 
to the defence of the religion of Jesus Christ, as revealed 
in the Holy Bible and illustrated in the Book of Common 
Prayer against the varying errors of the day, whether mate- 
rialistic, rationalistic, or professedly religious, and also to its 
defence and confirmation in respect of such central truths 
as the Trinity^ the Atonement, Justification and the Inspira- 
tion of the Word of God and of such central facts as the 
Church's Divine Order and Sacraments, her historical Refor- 
mation and her rights and powers as a pure and National 
Church. And other subjects may be chosen if unanimously 
approved by the Board of Appointment as being both timely 
and also within the true intent of this Lectureship." 

Under the appointment of the Board created by the Trust, 
viz., the Dean of the General Theological Seminary and the 
Bishops respectively of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and 
Long Island, the Rev. W. H. Piatt, D.D., LL. D., Rector of 
St. Paul's Church, Rochester, N. Y., delivered the Lectures 
for the year 1886, contained in this volume. 



WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



I. Handbook of Art Culture. 

II. The Influence of Religion in the Development 
OF Jurisprudence. 

III. Legal Ethics, or, the Unity of Law. 

IV. God Out and Man In, or. Replies to R. G. 

Ingersoll. 

V. After Death — What ? or, the Immortality of 
THE Soul. 



NOTE. 



The Lecturer is unable, in publishing these lectures, to 
reproduce the popular form of illustrations, that were al- 
lowable in the freedom of their extemporaneous delivery. 
His further revision of them has been impossible under the 
pressure of unassisted daily Lenten services and lectures, 
both in and out of his own parish. It is his hope, at no 
very distant day, to be able to give his subject a more ex- 
tended and critical discussion; but, lest the realization of 
that hope should be unexpectedly delayed, immediate use 
has been made of such supplemental matter from his other 
lectures, essays and books, whether published or unpublished, 
as was thought to complete and strengthen his present argu- 
ment. With the most careful proof-reading possible under 
the circumstances, the author discovers errors which every 
scholar will readily correct for himself. 

W. H. P. 
Easter Monday^ 
Rochester^ 1886. / 



ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS. 



PAGE. 



I. Supernatural Power. Lect. I. i 

1. Facts imply a Factor. 2 

2. Factor implies Power. 8 

3. Power is supernatural. 9 

4. Supernatural Power manifests. 19 

(a) Causative phenomena. 

(b) Derivative phenomena. 

Eirst. — Life from life. 27 

Second. — Will from will. 30 

Third.-— Mind from mind. ^2 

Eourlh. — Consciousness from consciousness 33 

Eifth. — Personality from personality. ^6 

(c) A great subsequent proves a greater antecedent. 40 

(d) A small antecedent proves a smaller subsequent. 49 

5. Supernatural Power is one Being. 64 

II. Methods OE Supernatural Power. Lect. II. 69 

1. Method as related to miracles. 

2. Method as related to providence. 

3. Method as related to Law. 

4. Method as related to creation. 
{a) Inorganic (b) Organic, 

5. Method as related to evolution. 

(a) as a process, {b) as a method. 

6. Method as seen in correlation. 
(a) Direct, (d) Inverse. 

7. Method of Correlation of Force. Lect. VI. 267 

(a) Unconscious, {b) Conscious. 

8. Method of Persistence. Lect. VII. 306 

{a) of consciousness, (d) of force, (c) of soul. 





69 




73 




74 


Lect. III. 


113 


Lect. IV. 


167 


Lect. V. 


252 



ERRATA 



Page 15 — Second line from top, read the word Inscrutable for " Inscruti- 
able." 

Page 34 — Fourteenth line from bottom, read then for " the." 

Page 40 — Sixth line from bottom, omit " But that is impossible." 

Page 47 — Fifth line from top, omit "We derive only power." 

Page 49 — Second line from bottom, read ?ioumenal for " nomenal." 

Page 63 — Eleventh line from bottom, read Though for " As." 

Page 105 — Top line, read Ethics is law for "No ethics is law." 

Page 107 — Top line, read effects for *' effect.". 

Page 129 — Thirteenth line from top, 'insert which after "that." 

Page 169 — Top line, I'ead for for " to." 

Page 176 — Put (<r) in brackets for (e). 

Page 278 — Second line from top, read 1 ^^ 2 iox " 142." 

Page 320 — Omit equally, in seventh line from bottom. 

Page 321 — Transpose not before " that," in fourth line from bottom. 



LECTURE 1. 



SUPERNATURAL POWER. 

The Philosophy of the Supernatural is the deduc- 
tion of supernatural principles from an induction of 
natural facts. 

We can better hope to define supernature, when 
we have first defined nature. Nature is all that it can 
prove itself to be, and Supernature is all that nature 
is not, and which it cannot prove itself to be. Nature 
is the derived ; supernature is the underived. Super- 
nature is that which has always been ; nature is that 
which has not always been. My object is to show 
that, 

I. Nature cannot be separated fro7n Supernature, the 
stream from the fountain, the human from the super- 
human. Infinite, supernatural Power manifests finite 
methods. Nature, a part, makes the induction of su- 
pernature the whole. As a belief in supernature is 
intuitive to the human mind, we have not so much 
to prove supernature, as to disprove the arguments 
of those who deny it. In doing the latter, we con- 
firm the former. 

How shall we prove this? Shall we assume the 
supernatural, and reason, a priori, down to nature, or 
shall we begin at the admitted observable facts of 



2 The Philosophy of the SitpernaturaL 

nature, and reason a posteriori up to supernature ?' 
There are what we call natural facts, things done 
rather than things existing, which we can test by the 
scales, the scalpel, the retort, and the crucible. Let 
us, then, begin our study with the verifiable observa- 
tions of the facts of nature. Subject and object are 
related as parent and child ; one is derived from the 
other ; and any philosophy of the relative that ig- 
nores either subject or object — cause or effect — nou- 
menon or phenomenon — is incomplete as a philosophy. 
When told that facts are related by certain laws, the 
demand is irrepressible, that we go further, and ac- 
count for the laws, and for their Law-giver. The loy- 
alty of the human intellect to itself will never evade^ 
nor permit any line of thinking calling itself philoso- 
phy or science, to evade a complete answer to the 
questions it may raise. We study matter for an ob- 
jective base to a subjective theology. 

Nothing is beyond supernatural purpose and power. 
Nature but photographs the map in the supernatural 
mind. Method is a working plan of Power. And 
here we notice the distinction between Power and 
Force, and between creation and causation. That 
which is Power to the philosophers is Force to the 
scientists. All new things as the first atom of any 
kind and the first organisms, are creations by Power 
as power ; all chemical or mechanical uses of these 
atoms are causations by Power called Force. Power 
as Force has a direct causative method or plan of ap- 
plication ; first, when it chemically combines inorganic 
matter, and secondly, when it mechanically moves inor- 
ganic matter. After God, as an originating Power,. 



Power Chemically Combines Matter. 



manifested matter, whether manifesting himself as 
matter, as some Pantheists say, or creating it when 
there was nothing, He proceeded to construct it into 
to forms and functions, creating or residing in it, as 
chemical combinations, mechanical motion, and vital 
force. To find the Factor, let us begin with the 
facts. To do this, let us imagine ourselves standing, 
for a moment, on the bank of a river. In its depths 
are fish. On the bank are trees. We have water 
without life, trees with life, fish with life and intelli- 
gence, and we ourselves have conscious thought. 
Some one power is doing several different things. 
Every object is covered by the method of the uni- 
verse, whatever the method is. In the water, we see 
a direct method of extrinsic power, creating atoms 
of oxygen and hydrogen, and as force causing them 
to become, with an unsuspended causation, the inor- 
ganic substance of water. In the organic trees, and 
in the fish, and in man, we see an additional, indirect 
method of extrinsic power, committing to the mys- 
tery of heredity the transmission of life. Analyze 
one drop of water from the river, and we see it to 
be a fact, that 

(a) Matter is chemically combined. 

The drop of water is the product of chemic affinity. 
But what is chemic affinity ? Is it blind, unintelligent, 
aimless, impersonal ? Belonging to the inorganic de- 
partment of nature, one drop does not beget another ; 
but each for itself, underived from any other drop,' 
must have just so many parts of oxygen, and just so 
many parts of hydrogen, and be the immediate causa- 



4 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

tive combination of the original creative Power. 
No one drop by inheritance can help another. They 
must not only be causatively put together, but they 
must be causatively held together. Continued exist- 
ence is continued creation. The mystery of combi- 
nation is not in the oxygen alone, nor in the hydrogen 
alone, nor in both unless the proportions are exact. 
Fifteen parts of oxygen by weight will not combine 
into water with three parts of hydrogen. Creative 
power fixes its own conditions, if conditions it must 
have. The proportions must be sixteen of one and 
two of the other ; neither more nor less. Even then, 
how is it that these gasses become water ? Why do 
not these conditions produce ink, or wine, or milk, 
instead of mere water? No substance chemically de- 
finable has any attribute of life. Its atoms may be 
called dead. Who can explain the mystery ? 

We know that the sun's rays, acting upon the green 
surface of leaves over our heads, decompose the car- 
bonic dioxide, fix the carbon, and set free the oxygen ; 
but how is this done? How did the sun's rays get 
their power? We answer, by some creative wiil. 

We know that chlorate of potash when heated alone, 
will explode like gunpowder; and yet we know that 
when this potash is heated in the presence of a little 
black oxide of manganese, it gasifies in perfect quiet- 
ness and safety, and the manganese remains un- 
changed. To call this result a catalysis of the ele- 
ment, names, but does not explain it. How or by 
what power does the manganese hold the heated pot- 
ash in subjection ? By some creative will. How do 
similar molecules of gold or salt cohere, dissimilar 



Matter is Mechanically Moved. 



molecules of granite or gunpowder only adhere? 
The same will is the only explanation. How is it 
that by slowly heating with a certain proportion of 
the oil of vitriol, diluted largely \vith water, common 
sawdust, paper, and old rags even, have the proper- 
ties of sugar? The power of the change is in this 
same creative will. By what power does fire burn, 
medicines affect disease, or any and all other chemic 
changes take place ? We know what occurs, but hoiv f 
And still more, why — for what end — are these changes 
made? 

Again, in this water, as in everything, frofn a grain 
of sand to worlds and systems of worlds, we see it to 
be a fact that, 

{b) Matter is mechanically moved. 

What is mechanic force? Is that, too, blind, aim- 
less, unintelligent, and impersonal ? Water goes up 
in the trees, and down in the river. Why does the 
same fluid move in these opposite directions? One 
force overcomes another force. We say that water 
rises in the trees by capillary attraction, and fiows 
down the channel by the attraction of gravitation, 
and the fish swim up the stream by will-power, in 
spite of gravitation. Unless will is law, fish swim up 
the stream without law and against law. Are these 
names of two different forces, or of one and the same 
force, moving water in different directions? What 
is gravitation? Is it intelligent or unintelligent? 
Whatever it is, it is the all-embracing power of the 
universe, holding all to one centre. But what is that 
centre? And further, we see it to be a fact that 



The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



(c) Matter is vitally organized. 

What is vital cause or force? In these trees be- 
neath which we pause, are atoms of carbon, hydro- 
gen, and nitrogen, organized by some cause called 
LIFE. What is life ? Let those who claim to explain 
the wonders of nature, explain life. How does any 
organism cure its wounds ? How does the seed form, 
and the bud open, and the flower form and paint 
itself, and the fruit come to its ripened use ? 

Again, while we are looking at the work of some 
one Power masked in the atoms, and in the motion 
of the water, and in the growth and structure of the 
trees, we see in our own reflections upon these won- 
ders, a conscious cause or force. How do we think, and 
how do we thinh about our thoughts f We are conscious 
that we are conscious. Do atoms think ? If so, atoms 
of what ? What class of atoms are so endowed, and 
who endowed them ? Do they think separately, in 
composition, or when compounded? 

2. Fact implies a factor as much as the deed a 
doer ; the thing made the maker ; as much as a first 
implies a second, or the second the first ; and if we 
deny a factor to a fact, the doer to the deed, a creator 
to creation, or a cause to an effect, we must remould 
all present thought and language. 

But from facts we must form some notion of the 
Factor — from the seen we must form a conception of 
the Unseen — from phenomena we must form some 
opinion as to the Noi\menon. For illustration ; when 
we see a convex bullet we know that it came out of a 
concave mould. 



Fact Implies Factor. 



We have said that every fact must have a Factor, 
and the Factor must be supernatural to a natural fact. 
These terms, fact and factor, strongly express crea- 
tion and a Creator. Mr. Spencer calls the Factor of 
facts a Power ; but right here the question is, is the 
force of the Factor extrinsic or intrinsic to the fact ? 
Sometimes Mr. Spencer writes as though he thought 
the Power was extrinsic. He says, " We are obliged 
to regard every phenomenon as the manifestation of 
some Power by which we are acted upon^ (F. P. 
§27/^. §§28, 194.) 

Nothing but will is automatic. Everything is either 
pushed or pulled along. Whatever evolution there 
may be, it is but the reaction of involution. For in- 
stance, the intrinsic energy of foliation returns the 
extrinsic Power of the chemistry of the Sun. Power 
«bbs and flows. Unless this Power be idle, all must 
also admit that this Power unlimited in time and space, 
manifests facts limited in time and space. Positive 
philosophy may arbitrarily limit itself to a study of 
facts— of phenomena— of effects — in a word, of the 
Object ; but the intelligence of mankind will require 
a system of such pretension, to find a law-giver for 
its laws — causes for its effects — noumenon for its 
phenomena— a Subject for its Object. Facts must be 
traced back to facts, ad infinitiun, to a Factor, in order 
to construct complete science. Science is more than 
a catalogue of facts. Facts are objective to subject- 
ive Power. And here we reach the distinction be- 
tween philosophy and science ; philosophy studies 
the subjective Power, and sciehce the objective facts 
as a method of all that is before the mind. 



8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural 



3. Factor implies Power. The Infinite Factor ap- 
pears in the finite fact. The known fact reveals that 
unknown Factor, which in both Scripture and science, 
is called Power. St. Paul says, '' the invisible things 
of Him from the creation of the world are clearly 
seen, being understood by the things that are made, 
even His eternal Power and Godhead." As the cause 
is greater than the effect— as the producer is before 
the produced— as that which is, came from that which 
was before— as the doer is greater than the deed— so 
the factor is greater than the fact, the Power is greater 
than its manifestation. 

Prof. Fiske says : *' There exists a power, to which 
no limit in time or space is conceivable, of which all 
phenomena, as presented in consciousness, are mani- 
festations, but which we can know only through these 
manifestations. Here is a formula legitimately ob- 
tained by the employment of scientific methods, as 
the results of subjective analysis on the one hand* 
and of objective analysis on the other hand. Yet this 
formula, which presents itself as the final outcome of 
a purely scientific inquiry, expresses also the funda- 
mental truth of theism— the truth by which religious 
feeling is justified. The existence of God— the Su- 
preme truth asserted alike by Christianity and by 
inferior historic religion— is asserted with equal em- 
phasis by that cosmic philosophy which seeks its data 
in science alone. * * ^ Though science may de- 
stroy mythology, it can never destroy religion ; and 
to the astronomer of the future, as well as the psalm- 
ist of old, the heavens will declare the glory of God." 
(Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, 2 vol., p. 417.) 



Factor Implies Power. 



What is this Power, and what can we know of it ? 
Mr. Spencer says, "" The consciousness of an Inscru- 
table Power manifested to us through all phenomena, 
has been growing ever clearer ; and must eventually 
be freed from imperfections. The certainty that on 
the one hand such a Power exists, while on the other 
hand its nature transcends intuition and is beyond 
imagination, is the certainty towards which intelli- 
gence has from the first been progressing. To this 
conclusion Science inevitably arrives as it reaches its 
confines ; while to this conclusion Religion is irresist- 
ibly driven by criticism. And satisfying, as it does, 
the demands of the most rigorous logic, at the same 
time that it gives the religious sentiment the wid- 
est possible sphere of action, it is the conclusion 
we are bound to accept without reserve or qualifica- 
tion. (F. P., § 31.)" 

But this Inscrutable Power is so much a power of 
not-nature, that we have the authority of Mr. Spen- 
cer himself for saying that, 

4. This pozuer is supernatural. What is superna- 
ture ? This question is answered when we know what 
nature is. Supernature is that which nature is not, 
and for which nature cannot account. As the factor is 
greater than the fact, so if the fact is natural, the 
factor must be supernatural. 

The two conclusions of Mr. Spencer are : first, that 
nature and supernature are dual and not the same ; 
and, second, that the ultimate genesis of nature is in 
supernature — in other words, supernature begins all, 
and manifests itself in a method of natural facts. No 
greater inequality could be admitted, than that admit- 



lo The Philosophy of the SitpernaturaL 



ted, but not defined, by Mr. Spencer. The difference, 
as just said, is in kind, not degree. One is what 
the other appoints, but cannot be what the other is. 
Supernature implies all possible inequality over na- 
ture in duration, essence, power and place. If super- 
nature is eternal, nature must be temporal ; if super- 
nature is Being, nature must be manifestation ; if 
supernature is omnipresent, nature must be local ; if 
supernature is omniscient, nature must be nescient ; 
if supernature is conscious, nature must be uncon- 
scious ; Man is supernatural so far as he is supernatur- 
ally conscious, as were the Prophets and the Apostles ; 
if supernature is power, nature must be only method. 
The plan of nature is supernatural to nature. 

Material science, as science, could not possibly ad- 
mit more to religion, than has been admitted by Mr. 
Spencer. Having traced, though to a limited extent, 
the methods of supernatural power, to the uttermost 
limits of its manifestation called nature, science must 
leave religion to follow on with its worship, of all 
that is beyond. Nature is but the method of super- 
nature, and this method only is subject to scientific 
study. Religion is for the supernatural power be- 
hind the method. Science may study what superna- 
ture does; religion bows before what supernature is. 
Here, then, we have the two sides of the universe, 
nature and supernature ; and the two studies, science 
and religion. Science ought not to question the be- 
liefs of religion in that where it has no knowledge ; 
and religion ought to rejoice for all knowledge of 
nature furnished by science, enlarging its conceptions 
of supernature. 



Power is Step er natural. 1 1 



So far as the modern theory of evolution is proved, 
it proves all that need be proved, as to the existence 
and attributes of the supernatural— of God. Ac- 
cording to its logic of necessary progress, if God did 
not make nature, nature has made God. This is 
proved by the supernatural evolution of nature, or 
by the natural evolution of supernature. To begin 
is to create ; to continue is to evolve. 

Did supernature evolve nature, or nature, superna- 
ture? In the supernatural evolution of nature, the 
less is from the greater, or the part from the whole. 
In the natural evolution of supernature, the greater 
is from the less or the whole from a part. Evolution 
IS a method of unbroken, progressive creation. Di- 
rect or indirect creation is every moment, every- 
Avhere, in everything. Creation begins and continues 
the universe. Evolution, if anything, is an intelli- 
gent method of carrying on what intelligent power 
originally created. Our reasoning, whether from 
supernature to nature, or from nature to superna- 
ture, is both a priori and a posteriori. Supernature as 
an origin, leads us, a priori, to nature as a product; 
and nature as a product leads us back, a posteriori, to 
supernature as an origin. So, nature as a cause, leads 
us a priori to supernature as an effect ; and nature 
as an effect, leads us back a posteriori \,o supernature 
as a cause. In either look, the Present is a historian 
of the Past, and a Prophet of the Future. If we can- 
not see that supernature has minimized itself to na- 
ture, we must admit, that in the necessity of eternal 
progress, nature must maximize itself to supernature. 
''As to the students of Science, occupied as such 



1 2 The Philosophy of the Superiiatural. 

are with established truths," continues Herbert Spen- 
cer, " and accustomed to regard things not already 
known as things hereafter to be discovered, they are 
liable to forget that information, however extensive 
it may become, can never satisfy inquiry. Positive 
knowledge does not, and never can, fill the whole 
region of possible thought. At the utmost reach of 
discovery there arises, and must ever arise, the ques- 
tion — What lies beyond ? As it is impossible to 
think of a limit to space so as to exclude the idea of 
space 13'ing outside that limit; so we cannot conceive 
of any explanation profound enough to exclude the 
question — What is the explanation of the explanation? 
Regarding science as a gradual increasing sphere, 
we may say, that every addition to its surface does 
but bring it into wider contact with surrounding 
nescience." (F. P. § 4.) 

If asked what is supernature, I repl}" by asking 
what is nature ? Is Power over nature natural or 
supernatural to nature ? If nature is an explanation 
of all things, supernature is that explanation of the 
explanation which answers Mr. Spencer's question. 
In the dual existence of the universe, St. Paul says, 
*' The invisible things of Him from the creation of 
the world are clearl}^ seen, being understood by the 
things that are made, even his eternal power and 
godhead ; so that the}^ are without excuse." (Rom. 
i., 20.) Thought becomes visible. Power takes meth- 
od. Mind is supernatural to the matter it proves to 
exist. To deny the supernatural assumes that the 
natural is both admitted and comprehended. But, if 
only the comprehensible is the natural, then nothing is 



Power is Behind All. i% 



the natural. If all is supernatural which is incompre- 
hensible, then all is supernatural ; for while we can 
apprehend some of the naked facts of matter, we 
cannot comprehend why the facts are facts— we can 
comprehend nothing. The supernatural is the in- 
comprehensible part of the comprehensible ; it is that 
which we do not understand in that which we think 
we do understand ; it is the unknown part of the 
known. Supernature is the invisible and intelligent 
Power behind the visible and unintelligent Form. As 
every concavity must enclose a convexity, and every 
convexity be enclosed in a concavity — as nothing can 
contain, surround, or embrace itself, so the finite 
must be within the circle of the infinite — nature must 
be contained in some supernatural container, call it 
supernature or what you may. As between nature 
and supernature, one is as incomprehensible as the 
other— in fact, they are different names for the same 
existence, considered from different sides of the uni- 
verse. One considers God in what He is, and the 
other in what he does. As from the South Pole to 
the North Pole it is all the way north, or as from 
the North Pole to the South Pole it is all the way 
south ; so from supernatural existence to natural phe- 
nomena, it is all supernatural, and from natural phe- 
nomena to supernatural existence it is all natural. Is 
the movement from supernature down to nature or 
from nature up to supernature? The supernatural 
is the subjective side of objective nature ; the natural 
is the objective side of subjective supernature. As 
the invisible fountain prolongs itself into the river, 
so supernature flows out into visible existence, called 



14 The Philosophy of the Step er natural. 



nature. Supernature, Natura Natura7is, is always 
producing- and is never produced ; Nature, Natura 
Naturata, is always produced, and is never produc- 
ing. But we cannot tell where supernature ends and 
where nature begins ; for, in a sense, each is the 
other. There is subjective identity and objective 
difference. As said before, all is supernatural or 
above nature for which nature cannot account, such 
as its own origin and development, it is that by 
which nature is nature. Strictly speaking, however, 
to separate nature from supernature, other than verb- 
ally, is to separate the inseparable Creator and crea- 
tion. Nature can no more separate itself from super- 
nature than a cube can separate itself from its own 
outside. Nature and supernature have a common 
centre in a supreme, omnipresent, omnipotent Will, 
personal or impersonal. 

The doctrine that supernature produces nature is 
the theistic logic of the whole producing a part ; 
but the doctrine that nature, the part that was, pro- 
duces the whole that is, is logically, pantheism. 

The Factor that could make a part of nature could 
make the whole ; and the Factor that could make the 
whole of nature, must be supernature. If words have 
any meaning, the finite is not the infinite, the fact is 
not the Factor, nor is the Factor the fact. Therefore, 
a natural fact implies a supernatural Factor. The man- 
ifesting thought must be supernatural to the man- 
ifested thing. In theistic evolution, mind manifests 
its own matter ; in atheistic evolution, matter mani- 
fests its own mind. In this system the doctrine is, 
that the universe is the manifestation of a Power that 



Power is Behind All, 15 



transcends our knowledge. This Power is otherwise 
called the '' Inscrutiable Cause," - Immanent Force " 
''The Unknowable Reality," -The Unknowable 
Cause, Power or Force." (F. P., § 62.) With these 
phrases begm and end all that agnostic evolution has 
to say about the origin of the universe. Indeed evo- 
lutionists cannot deny that facts have a Factor ; but 
who or what that Factor is, whether personal or im- 
personal, intelligent or unintelligent, evolution is 
silent. That Factor, to say the least, is a Power. 

To say that all things are manifestations of a 
Power that transcends our knowledge, is to say, that 
what the manifesting Power is, the manifested thing 
is not ; and therefore, as just said, if one is natural 
the other must be supernatural. Nature is the com- 
prehensible side of the supernatural, and the super- 
natural is the incomprehensible side of the natural. 

" Though the Absolute cannot in any manner or 
degree be known, in the strict sense of knowing, yet 
we find that its positive existence is a necessary doc 
trine of consciousness; that so long as conscious- 
ness continues, we cannot for an instance rid it of this 
doctrine; and that thus the belief which this doctrine 
constitutes has a higher warrant than any other 
whatever." (F. P., § 27.) 

Does the bullet make its own mould ? Does the star 
evolve its own atmosphere? and prescribe its own 
orbit and place } That the Supernatural is something 
that the natural is not, and by which the natural is 
natural, is admitted by Mr. Spencer when he says (F. 
P. § 30) " The progress of intelligence has throughout 
been dual. Though it has not seemed so to those 



1 6 The Philosophy of the Supe7^naturdL 

who made it, every step in advance has been a step 
towards both the natural and the supernatural. The 
better interpretation of each phenomena has been, on 
the one hand, the rejection of a cause that was rela- 
tively conceivable in its nature, but unknown in the 
order of its actions, and, on the other hand, the adop- 
tion of a cause that was known in the order of its ac- 
tion, but relatively inconceivable in its nature. The 
first advance out of universal fetichism, manifestly in- 
volved the conception of agencies less assimilable to 
the familiar agencies of men and animals, and therefore 
less understood ; while at the same time, such newly 
conceived agencies, in so far as they were distin- 
guished by their uniform effects, were better under- 
stood than those they replaced. All subsequent ad- 
vances display the same double result. Every deeper 
and more general power arrived at as a cause of phe- 
nomena, has been at once less comprehensible than 
the special ones it superseded, in the sense being less 
definitely representable in thought ; while it has been 
more comprehensible in the sense that its actions have 
been more completely predicable. The progress has 
thus been as much towards the establishment of a 
positively unknown as towards the establishment of 
a positive known. Though as knowledge approaclies 
its culmination, every unaccountable and seemingly 
supernatural fact is brought into the category of facts 
that are accountable and natural ; yet, at the same 
time, all accountable or natural facts are proved to 
be, in their ultimate genesis, unaccountable and super- 
natural." 

Whether this directly results from creation, evolu- 



SupernaUiral Nature, ij 



tion or emanation, nature is not supernature, the fact 
is not the Factor, the subject is not the Object, evo- 
lution is not the evolver. The Supernatural Factor, 
is that incomprehensible Power in every fact which 
the fact itself is not, and by which the fact is a fact. 
We are told that nature includes all things ; but if 
''all things are manifestations of a Power that tran- 
scends our knowledo^e ; then Power was before that 
manifestation of Power we call nature; and what the 
power is, the manifestation is not ; yet if the Power 
is Supernatural, the manifestation must be Supernat- 
ural. Power did or did not exhaust itself in nature. 
If Power did exhaust itself in nature, then nature as a 
whole, includes all Power; but how can Power mani- 
fest anything further when it is itself included in all 
things? The effect cannot manifest its own cause. 
Can the circumference manifest itself as the centre 
and cease to be the circumference ? What becomes 
of the centre when the circumference is gone, and 
what becomes of the circumference when the centre 
is gone? If Supernature could have form, it would 
be as unlike nature as the form of the concave mould 
is from its reversed form in the convex bullet, and the 
form of the die in the form of the coin ; and in the 
unity of both one is the complement of the other. 
There can be no concavity without a convexity, nor 
any convexity without a concavitv. Even so does 
God the infinite Spirit, - without body, parts, or pas- 
sion, reverse Himself in the form of finite matter, in 
the visible part of the invisible whole, and in animal 
passions. As it is a contradiction to say that anything 
IS, and at the same time is not, so the impersonal forms 



1 8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



which we do know, cannot be the personal Power 
which we do not know but which can be proved. The 
infinite may create the finite, but the infinite cannot 
be the finite. These skeptics tell us that the Power 
that produces all things is unknowable ; and yet they 
claim to know it so far as to say, that it is not our 
God. If it is unknowable to them, how can they say 
what it is — whether it is or is not our God. 

Look through your window in the Spring time, and 
see nature develop a plan of Power. Each leaf, and 
bud seems to know when to come, what form to take^ 
and when its form and function are complete does not 
fail or forget to repeat itself. What does all this? 
All admit Power. Who can doubt this superhuman 
intelligence when it sublimely surpasses all that hu- 
man intelligence has ever done? It works to a plan 
incomprehensible to highest created thought. Evo- 
lution proper, like the Kaleidoscope, progressively 
changes but never repeats. If heredity in organic 
nature is a fact in evolution, it is a repeating fact, 
unlike all other evolution. 

In materialism, or the Matter-System, eternal matter 
is all ; in idealism, or the Mind-System, eternal mind 
is all; in evolution, or the Power-System, eternal 
power is all. In evolution so-called, there is both a 
Power, a Process and a Method. Supernature is this 
Power and Nature is the Method. The Supernatural 
Power, both abstract as Power and concrete as a 
Factor, is that by which everything is anything, and 
Nature the method, called Evolution, is the way of 
this Supernatural Power, by which everything is any- 
thing. For the present, we do not characterize this 



Power as Power in Creation. m 



Power as either personal or impersonal. All of Evo- 
lution that is not correlation, if such there can be, is 
simply a natural process or method of Supernatural 
Power. 

If nature is a manifestation of supernatural power, 
how far is nature supernatural ? From a supernatural 
fountain must flow a supernatural stream. As water 
will rise to the level of its fountain, it would seem 
that all manifestations called nature would be as su- 
pernatural as the manifesting Power. 

5. Supernatural Power is a manifesting Power. Mr. 
Spencer says, -all things are manifestations of a 
Power that transcends our knowledge." Manifesta- 
tions prove manifesting Power. These manifestations 
are either creations, causations, or derivations. Cre- 
ative manifestations are manifestations of new things 
by Power as Power; causative manifestations are 
different uses by Power as Force, of things already 
created; derivative manifestations are hereditary 
manifestations by Power as genetic Function. In 
inorganic manifestations, or of things without life, 
Power manifests each individual as an individual, but 
not one from another ; in organic manifestations, or 
of things with life. Power manifests one thing from 
another, in hereditary succession. In causative man- 
ifestations, unlike is from unlike ; in derivative mani- 
festations like is from like; in both, the less is from 
the greater, not the greater from the less— that is, the 
Power IS greater than its manifestation— the effect is 
less than the cause, the derived is less than the unde- 
nved. What does causative manifestations in nature 
prove as to the manifesting Power above nature > 



20 The Philosophy of the Siipernatttral. 



They prove that all phenomena without life, are 
caused by extrinsic, not derived by intrinsic power; 
and that all phenomena with life are derived by in- 
intrinsic, not caused by extrinsic power. Any way, 
the Power is greater than its manifestation ; or, which 
is the same thing-, the manifestation is less than its 
manifesting- Power. 

{a) In causative manifestations, the manifested 
atoms are unlike the manifesting Power; the effect is 
unlike the cause— the thunder is unlike the lightning 
— the bugle is unlike the blast — the oxygen that 
consumes the carbon is unlike fire. What is cause .^ 
Cause is Power at work. That is the true cause or 
Power of the universe, which most intelligently ac- 
counts for the universe : a conscious cause, or Power, 
most intelligently accounts for the universe: there- 
fore, a conscious cause, or Power, is the true cause, 
or Power, of the universe. Some agnostics prefer 
the terms power and manifestation, to the old terms 
of cause and effect ; but the meaning of both pairs of 
correlatives is the same. The bridge between unlim- 
ited consciousness of the Power, or cause, and the 
manifestation of the limited consciousness of persons 
and the absence of consciousness in limited things, 
is in the unity of all things. Somehow, all is one 
and one is all. The logic of personal pantheism is 
the logic of St. Paul's argument. An omnipresent 
God is an omnipresent life, mind, will, conscious- 
ness, power, and person. Like knots in a skein of 
thread, or ganglions in a system of nerves, there is 
a uniting movement in the several constituents of 
cause, when they come to us as ojie cause. This is so 



The Beginning of Causation, 



21 



in the conditions of life, but not so in life itself. . Life 
is cause to itself, if cause there be. Creation, as dis- 
tinguished from causation, begins exactly when Will 
acts— when the absolute manifests the relative— when 
Power manifests force. Causation, as distinguished 
from creation, begins when Will changes the relations 
of things, or when force, as distinguished from Power, 
acts. Just how or why manifestation follows Power,' 
^ or object follows subject, or effect follows cause, or 
matter follows mind, or phenomena follows noume- 
non, is inexorably inscrutable to human intelligence. 
''There is here interposed/' says Prof. Tyndal (on 
Virchow and Evolution, Pop. Sci., Jan., 187 ), - a fis- 
sure over which the ladder of physical reasoning i. 
mcompetent to carry us." But Prof. T. goes to the 
wrong place to get across. The ' fissure ' that is open 
at the top, needing a bridging ladder, is closed at the 
bottom, where no ladder could be used. Below visi- 
ble division is invisible unity. The two walls of a 
fissure, like a re-entrant angle, end as they meet each 
other. One Power takes many forms. One line may 
be rounded into curves, or sharpened into angles. 
'' We must, therefore, accept," says Prof. T., '' the 
observed association as an empiricle fact, without 
being able to bring it under the yoke of a priori de- 
duction." Between the subjective and the object- 
ive, he asks, -What is the causal connection?" and 
answers, - I do not see the connection, nor am I ac- 
quainted with anybody who does " {lb). But as just 
said, fact is none tlie less a fact, because it is incom- 
prehensible. We may comprehend the What, but 
not comprehend the How or the Who. 



2 2 The Philosophy of the SMpernahtral, 



Prof. Youmans says : '' The tendency of inquiry is 
ever from the material toward the abstract, the ideal, 
the spiritual. The course of astronomical science 
has been on a vast scale to withdraw the attention 
from the material and sensible, and to fix it upon the 
invisible and supersensuous. It has shown that a 
pure principle forms the immaterial foundation of 
the universe. From the baldest material, we rise at 
last to a truth of the spiritual world, of so exalted an 
order that it has been said to connect the mind of 
man with the spirit of God." (Youmans' Introduc- 
tion to Essays on the Correlation and Conservation 
of Force.) 

Boscovitch held that what we call a material body, 
is nothing else than an agg-reg-ation of 'centres of 
force.' John S. Mill psychologized matter down to 
a '' permanent possibility of sensations." But we 
must not here enter upon the question, what con- 
sciousness there is veiled in apparent unconsciousness, 
or how much mind there may be in matter. 

Holding natural life to be a mode if not an emana- 
tion of supernatural life, we need not join issue with 
Prof. Tyndal when he says (Belfast Address) : '' that 
as he prolongs the vision backward across the bound- 
ary of experimental evidence, he discerns in that mat- 
ter which we in our ignorance, and notwithstanding 
our reverence for its Creator, have covered with op- 
probrium, the promise and potency of every form and 
quality of life." If matter and material forces do 
not themselves see, there are omniscient eyes that see 
for them and in them. As we magnify nature, we 
glorify supernature. 



Psychic Matter. 22 



If Francis Galton's statistics be true, not more than 
one scientist in ten takes the non-religious ground, 
and says that matter is factor and mind is fact. To 
escape the perplexity involved in the impotency of 
unintelligent matter, impersonal intelligence has been 
attributed to it ; giving to matter and mind different 
names for one and the same existence. But mind 
does not know itself to be matter, nor does matter 
know itself to be mind. But if matter and mind are 
one and the same, shall we call that oneness matter, 
or shall we call it mind ? If mind exists, we cannot 
say that the universe is all matter : and e converso, if 
matter exists, we cannot say that the universe is all 
mind, unless each is the other. 

Prof. Hoeckel says : *' Under whatever form we 
may picture to ourselves the union of soul and body, 
of spirit and matter, it is still clear, on the theory of 
evolution, that all organic matter at least in general, 
is, in some sense possessed of psychic properties. In 
the first place the progress of microscopic research 
has shown that the elementary anatomic parts of 
organs— the cells— generally possess an individual 
psychic life." (Munich Address in Sup. Pop. Sci., 
Feb., 1878.) He speaks of *' cell-soul" ''soul of the 
atom," &c. Wallace (Nat. Sel. 363) says, '' none of 
the properties of matter can be due to the atoms 
themselves, but only to the forces which emanate 
from the points in space indicated by the atomic 
centres, it is logical continually to diminish their size 
till they vanish, leaving only localized centres of 
force to represent them." All atoms are equal but 
unlike, and one atom cannot be the cause of another 



24 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



atom, nor can one atom be the effect of another 
atom. An atom of carbon cannot be the cause of 
another like atom of carbon. 

It has been said that Nature is an endless series of 
efficient cause. This may be admitted, if an endless 
series of efficient mean a system of persistently cre- 
ative pulsations, propagated and transmitted, as said 
before, like concentric waves, from one central, omni- 
scient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnific cause; 
but there can be no series to a succession of blind, 
original, different, independent, impersonal causes. 
There can be no universe, as the word imples, with- 
out a centre ; and that centre must be one to which 
both the inorganic and the organic look for their law 
of harmonious adjustment and operation — a centre 
of sufficient intelligence, power, and energy. 

The Power of the cause of things, is, in fact, in- 
scrutable to man. Aristotle's four causes — the mate- 
rial, the formal, the efficient and the final — teach us 
nothing. What anything is, how it is, whence it is, 
or why it is, man does not know. Herbert Spencer, 
as we have seen, gives the last formula and conclusion 
of philosophic thought, when he says, " The axiom- 
atic truth of physical science unavoidably postulate 
Absolute Being as the common basis." That was the 
opinion of Parmenides, 460 B. C. The word " cause,'' 
however, was not used in speculative discourse, until 
the time of Augustine, 400 A. D. Before that time 
the Greeks used words signifying the principle or 
beginning of things ; but no word like '' cause'" in the 
sense of power, which is now associated with the 
word " effect" as its correlative, was then used. 



Causal Power is Will. 25 



Causal power seems to be Will. As we trace all 
our own work to will, why not trace all other work to 
will? As far as we can see, power is in will, will is 
in personality, personality is in being : Coming down- 
ward, we have being, personality, power, will or law. 
If the one omnipresent cause be Absolute Being, 
then what are called secondary causes are not strictly 
causes at all ; but are only the systematic, persistent 
energy of this Being. Causation is the energy ot 
one, ever-expanding, inexhaustible unit of cause, not 
of many units. If Absolute Being be cause, then, as 
there cannot be more than one Absolute Being, there 
cannot be more than one cause. Cause is one as the 
sun ; effects are many as the rays. 

It has been objected that religionists insist that 
nothing can exist without a cause, except a cause, and 
that this uncaused cause is God. It is contended 
that every cause must produce an effect, because 
until it does produce an effect, it is not a cause, and 
every effect must in its turn become a cause. There- 
fore, it it argued, that in the nature of things, there 
cannot be a last cause, for the reason that a so-called 
last cause would necessarily produce an effect, and 
that effect must necessarily become a cause. The 
converse of these propositions must be true. Every 
effect must have had a cause, and everv cause must 
have had an effect. Therefore, there could have been 
no first cause. A first cause is just as impossible as 
a last effect." 

But such logic is fatal; for, if there be no first 
cause, there can be no first effect, and if there be no 
first effect, there can be no effect at all. If there be 



26 The Philosophy of the Supernatziral. 



any effect at all, there must be a first effect ; and if 
there be a first effect, there must be a first cause. 
Why is cause a cause ? May we not say that what is 
called an efficient cause is the activity of that Power 
by which everything is anything? and includes orig- 
inating intelligence, originating power, and the orig- 
inating act? That cannot be the cause of a thing 
which has no knowledge how to cause, nor has the 
power to cause. Every series has a beginning. If a 
series of causes is what is called nature, then nature 
symbolizing that series, had a beginning in some su- 
pernatural power beyond it. 

But let us drop this play of correlative words about 
cause and effect, and speak of God as a Power. What 
is spoken of as first cause, I call an intelligent, self- 
directing, omnipresent, personal Power, from which 
all other power is derived, realizing a purpose, and 
originating and sustaining all things. Absolute Being 
or existence is uncaused. This efficient Power is al- 
together outside and before the whole chain of what 
is called cause and effect ; and, in this sense, we find 
God everywhere in the universe, manifesting himself 
as " an endless series of efficient causes." That power 
which is found behind, around, above and in all things, 
by whatever name we know it, is what religion adores 
as an omnipresent, personal Will, or God. Before 
leaving the subject of will-power as cause, let me 
notice the proposition that '' every effect must in turn 
become a cause ; " but it does not follow that every 
cause must have first been an effect. If there is any 
mental or moral freedom in the universe, Will is a 
cause that never was an effect ; and this will, whether 



Life zs from Life. 27 



Its action be ascertained by consciousness or by ob- 
servation and the experiments in science, or by the 
history of men and nations, we say is the Will of God. 
{b) In derivative manifestations, the first organism 
being created, the second is genetically derived from 
the first, like from like, roses from roses, fish from 
fish, birds from birds, men from men. The first or- 
ganism, like the first atom, was created, not derived ; 
the second organism was derived from the first, not 
created. The noumenon creates and causes phe- 
nomena, and organism derives from organism. De- 
rived nature inherits the power that created it, and 
transmits it as genetic Function. The nature of the 
parent is in the child, the nature of the seed is in 
the rose, and the nature of the rose is in the seed ; 
sweet waters are from sweet fountains, and bitter 
waters are from bitter fountains. In causation, the 
subsequent effect is unlike the antecedent cause, as 
the shadow is unlike the sun, or as pain is unlike the 
blow that causes it. 

First, in derivative manifestations of like from like, 
life in manifestation is derived from an antecedent 
life in the manifesting Power. The one unlimited 
Power of life limits itself in the different manifesta- 
tions of life in tree and bird and man. Spontaneous 
generation is not only not proved, but it is emphati- 
cally denied. As life is a fact, if it be not spontane- 
ously generated, it must be either eternal, or super- 
naturally originated. If according to Mr. Spencer, 
there never has been an absolute commencement of 
anything, then human life must be eternal in eternal 
superhuman life. Some materialists have searched 



2 8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



and experimented in vain to find a material cause of 
life ; but Mr. Spencer says '' I do not believe in the 

* spontaneous generation' commonly alleged." * * 

* " That creatures having quite specific structures are 
evolved in the course of a few hours, without antece- 
dents calculated to determine their specific forms, is 
incredible. Not only the^ established truths of Biol- 
ogy, but the established truths of science in general, 
negative the supposition that organisms having struc- 
tures definite enough to identify as belonging to 
known genera and species, can be produced in the 
absence of germs derived from antecedent organ- 
isms of the same genera and species." ( i Bio. 480, 
Appendix.) " Construed in terms of evolution, every 
kind of being is conceived as a product of modifica- 
tions wrought by insensible gradations on a pre-exist- 
ing kind of being ; and this holds as fully of the sup- 
posed commencement of organic life, as of all subse- 
quent developments of organic life." (i Bio., p. zi82.) 

Prof. Tyndall, approving of Prof. Virchow's denial 
of spontaneous generation, says (Sup. Pop. Sci., 
April, 1878, p. 511), "I share his opinion that the 
theory of evolution in its complete form involves the 
assumption, that at some period or other of the Avorld's 
history, there occurred what would now be called 

* spontaneous generation.' I agree with him that " the 
proofs of it are still wanting. Whoever recalls to 
mind the lamentable failure of all the attempts made 
very recently to discover a decided support for gene- 
ratio cequivoca in the lower forms of transition from 
the inorganic to the organic world, will feel it doubly 
serious to demand that this theory, so utterly dis- 



Ty7idall Denies Spontaneous Generation. 29 



credited, should be in any way accepted as the basis 
of all our views of life." " I hold with Virchow, that 
the failures have been lamentable, that the doctrine is 
utterly discredited." 

Prof. Tyndall says (/^.), - No denier of the potency 
of matter could labor more strenuously than I have 
done, to demonstrate its impotence as regards spon- 
taneous generation. While expressing, therefore un- 
shaken "belief" in that form of materialism to which 
I have already given utterance, I here affirm that no 
shred of trustworthy experimental testimony exists 
to prove that life, in our day, has ever appeared inde- 
pendently of antecedent life." This is derivation, and 
not causation. That object which is caused does not 
depend on an antecedent like object ; but rather on an 
antecedent unlike power. Prof. Tyndall distinctly 
places the presence of life upon a derivation from 
antecedent life. Matter, without life, is first created 
and then causatively combined, not derived. In other 
words, all atoms are created ; all combinations of 
atoms are caused. Where Power stops creating, it 
begins to cause. In matter with life, the matter is 
caused and the life is derived ; hence while matter is 
from power, life is from that form of power known as 
life. 

Prof. T. further says, (see - Vitality," Fragments, 
ed., 1878, p. 459): -In tracing these phenomena 
through all their modifications, the most advanced 
philosophers of the present day declare that they 
ultimately arrive at a single source of power, from 
which all vital energy is derived." As this derived 
energy is life, there must be life in the underived 



: 



o The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



Power. The dependence of this derived, natural 
life on antecedent, supernatural life, determines the 
origin of all attributes of life, such as mind, will and 
consciousness. Life everywhere is one and the same 
Power, derived or underived, manifested or unmani- 

fested. 

Second, Will in manifestation is derived from ante- 
cedent will in manifesting Power. We are conscious 
of a will-power, though we may not be able to define 
it. I open and close my hand, and learn that my 
will is power. All that we know of our personal 
power is in our wills; and we know that will is 
power. Power is manifested as conscious Will in 
man, and as unconscious Force in nature, both 
organic and inorganic. And though, as Mr. Spencer 
says, (F. P., § i8), '' the exercise of force is altogether 
unintelligible," and though we may say that the exer- 
cise of Will is also unintelligible, yet, we know that 
Will acts, and we know that Force acts ; and both 
Will and Force are special names of a general power. 
Wallace says: "If, therefore, we have traced one 
force, however minute, to an origin in our Will, while 
we have no knowledge of any other primary cause 
of force, it does not seem an improbable conclusion 
that all force will be Will-Force and thus that the 
whole universe is not merely dependent on, but actu- 
ally is the Will of higher intelligencies, or of One 
Supreme Intelligence." (Natural Selection, p. 368, 
Sec. Ed.) If Will is Force, and Force is Will, we 
readily agree with Mr. Spencer that ''the creation of 
Force' is as inconceivable as the creation of Matter," 
(i Bro. § 112.) Uncreated and unlimited Will-Power 



Will is from Will 3 1 



acts, and its act is Force. But this Will-Power Mr. 
S. emphatically denies, even in the face of the proof* 
by his own experience. He savs, " In one case after 
another is abandoned that interpretation which as 
cribes phenomena to a Will analogous to the human 
VVill, working by methods analogous to human meth- 
ods," (I Bio. § 1 1 1.) But, if we affirm the human will 
and methods, how can we deny the superhuman will 
^ and methods? Whence is the human if not from the 
superhuman ? It cannot be from an origin less than 
human, for the cause is always greater than its effect 
But, if we deny unlimited superhuman Will-Power 
in the universe, we must, in the face of our conscious- 
ness. It would seem, deny limited, human Will-Power 
in ourselves. If human Power is human Will, why 
should not superhuman Power be superhuman WilP 
The way of Will is the way of Power, and the way 
ot Power, except as to miracles and special provi- 
dences, is method ; but that which to man is method 
IS not method to supernatural Will itself. Will as 
Will is not necessarily bound by method. While 
wefind uniformity of will in law, we need not be 
surprised to find multiformity of will in miracles 
and special providences. Above many forces is one 
Power, and that one Power is Will. 

Mr. Spencer declares that " each further advance 
of knowledge confirms the belief in the unity of 
Nature (i Bio. § 1 17.) But if one - Power unlimited 
in time and space " accounts for the univer<=e and 
that Power is Will, the unity of nature is in the unity 
of Will. The logic of evolution must be consistent. 
We shall not always particularize whether we 



32 The Philosophy of the Supernatural 



speak of the omnific Power as becoming or as creat- 
ing phenomena. The elastic word manifestation will 
be used to mean the creation by Power, or the meta- 
morphosis of Power. Which it is, is a secret with 
omniscience. What matters it to us whether Power 
becomes or creates impersonal things, so long as the 
personality of that Power is infinite and omnipres- 
ent? That is a question for God Himself. This will 
be discussed more fully when law is discussed. 

Third, Mind in manifestation is derived from ante- 
cedent mind in manifesting Power. That which 
controUs matter, as some understand matter, is not 
matter, as gravitation, heat, etc. Dr. Carpenter says : 
^'The culminating point of man's intellectual inter- 
pretation of nature may be said to be his recognition 
of the unity of power, of which her phenomena are 
the diversified manifestations. Toward this all sci- 
entific inquiry now tends. For the convertibility of 
the physical forces, the correlation of these with the 
vital, and the intimacy of that nex2is between mental 
and bodily activity, which, explain as we may, can- 
not be denied, all lead upward toward one and the 
same conclusions— the source of all power in Mind. 
^ ^ -'^ And thus, whilst the deep-seated instincts 
of humanity, and the profoundest researches of phil- 
osophy alike point to the Mind as the one and only 
source of power, it is the high prerogative of science 
to demonstrate the unity of the power which is ope- 
rating through the limitless extent and variety of 
the universe, and to trace its continuity through the 
vast series of ages that have been occupied in its evo- 
lution." (Carpenter's Mental Physiology, sec. 576.) 



Conscious Power from Conscious Power. ^iZ 



I think of a friend or an enemy, and my blood 
runs to or from my heart— I smile or I frown, as I 
love or as I hate, in spite of all will. Indeed, mind 
is a power of its own. 

Fourth, conscious mind in manifestation is a gift 
from an antecedent, conscious mind in the manifest- 
ing- Power. The superhuman set off something of 
itself in the human. We speak of the conscious and 
^ of the unconscious, or rather, as we should say, the 
not-conscious. We must remember that we are con- 
sidering the consciousness or unconsciousness of un- 
limited and eternal Power, not of its manifestations ; 
for they are not eternal. Some of the manifestations 
are conscious and some not-conscious. If unlimited 
Power was eternally not conscious, how did it mani- 
fest limited consciousness in man ? If it were eter- 
nally conscious, how did it manifest the not-conscious 
m things ? Always the unlike from unlike, is causa- 
tive, carrying somewhat of the power of the antece- 
dent into the subsequent ; but the manifestation of the 
conscious from the conscious being like from like, is 
derivative, carrying somewhat of the unlimited attri- 
■butes of the antecedent into the limited subsequent. 
The derivation of human consciousness from what 
we call superhuman unconsciousness, is impossible ; 
for there is no unconscious Power, as such, for the 
conscious to be derived from. In itself. Power must 
be unchangeably conscious or unconscious, but it 
cannot he alternately one or the other. The uncon- 
scious is not an entity, but the absence of an entity. 
The positive, — consciousness,— cannot be derived 
from the negative, unconsciousness. From nothing, 
nothing is. Conscious Power knows how to manifest 



34 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



the unconscious ; but an unconscious Power, if such 
a Power could be, would not know how to manifest 
the conscious. The greatest Power is in the greatest 
knowledge. We see, as a fact, that unlimited Power 
manifests conscious persons and things that are not 
conscious. 

What is consciousness ? Consciousness, as just 
said, is not only to think, but to think about our 
thought; not only to know, but to know that we 
know. The horse may think, but we have not dis- 
covered that he thinks about his thought, or that he 
knows that he knows. 

Mr. Spencer says (Pop. Sci., Jan., 1884): ''The 
power which manifests itself in consciousness is but 
a differently conditioned form of the power which 
manifests itself beyond consciousness." As human 
life is derived from underived superhuman life, so 
human consciousness is derived from underived 
superhuman consciousness. If Power includes its 
manifestations, the Power includes both conscious 
force and form that is not conscious ; for matter is 
one and mind is the other. If Power is unconscious, 
it manifested consciousness in personal man ; if it is 
conscious, it could not lose its consciousness when it 
manifested forms that were not conscious and matter 
that was not personal. We must distinguish between 
derivation when Power is an ancestor and imparts its 
own likeness, and causation, when Power, like the 
spider spinning from itself a web unlike itself, mani- 
fests or constructs things that are unlike itself. The 
unlimited Power that manifests all things is con- 
scious ; because unconsciousness, being the absence 
of consciousness, as cold is the absence of heat, is 



Conscious Power from Co7tsczous Power. 35 



only a negative condition, and not power at all. As it 
is not power, it can be neither cause nor an effect : it 
cannot know anything, do anything, or be anything. 
As we understand the theory of agnostic evolution, 
all things are eternally evolved from underived, nec- 
essary unity, or from underived necessary plurality. 
But nothing could be evolved from underived plural- 
ity, for plurality itself is evolved from underived 
unity ; therefore underived unity excludes underived 
plurality. This underived unity was either con- 
sciously intelligent, or unconsciously unintelligent. 
If It were consciously intelligent, it knew how to 
manifest the unconsciously unintelligent ; but if it 
were unconsciously unintelligent, it did 'not know 
how to manifest the consciously intelligent. Con- 
sciousness, whether derived or underived, is exclus- 
ively an individual intuition. There is nothing in 
the consciousness of one that could be in the con- 
sciousness of another. Unconsciousness, on the con- 
trary, IS a state common to different things, such as 
trees, seas, stones and stars, and there is nothing in 
the unconsciousness of the stars that is not in the un- 
consciousness of a stone. Indeed, unconsciousness 
IS only the absence of consciousness. Exclusive at- 
tributes distinguish the underived absolute and eter- 
nal unit; consciousness is an exclusive attribute- 
therefore consciousness distinguished the underived 
absolute and eternal unit. The original, underived 
Unit was, therefore, exclusively conscious ; for though 
this underived, absolute, conscious, superhuman Unit 
may manifest limited human, individual conscious- 
ness, it can never share its own consciousness. The 
power to be conscious may be derived, but not the 



2,6 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



contents of consciousness. If the original Unit was 
a Unit of will, of mind and of power, it was a con- 
scious unit, and if conscious, it was personal, and if 
it were personal it was that supernature which we 

call God. 

We started with an universally admitted power. 
Power is derived or underived. If it is derived it is 
not eternal ; if it is eternal, it is underived. To apply 
this : we are persons ; personality is in consciousness; 
consciousness is either derived or underived. Hu- 
man consciousness cannot be underived, for, though 
immortal, it is not eternal ; as it is not eternal it is 
derived. We could not derive our power of con- 
sciousness from any derived power of consciousness 
below us ; we must, therefore, derive our power of 
consciousness from underived power of conscious- 
ness above us. If derived power of consciousness is 
derived personality, so underived power of conscious- 
ness is underived personality. The admission of a 
derived power of human consciousness admits an un- 
derived superhuman power of consciousness, from 
which was possible for it to be derived— that is, the 
derived implies the underived. 

Mr. Spencer speaks of "the one absolute certainty, 
that he (man) is ever in the presence of an Infinite 
and Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed." 
{Pop. Sci. M., Jan., 1884.) If this Eternal Energy 
from which we proceed, could send us forth with a 
knowledge of ourselves, has this Energy no knowl- 
edge of its own self ? Like is from like. 

Fifth, that conscious power called human person- 
ality is the manifestation of an antecedent conscious 
Power we call superhuman personality. Uncon- 



Personality from Personality. 3 7 



sciousness in nature is the absence of that antecedent 
consciousness in supernature, called impersonal. A 
negative is the absence of a positive. 

Sir John F. W. Herschell says C Popular Lectures," 
XII), '^ In the only case in which we are admitted into 
personal knowledge of the origin of force, we find 
it connected with volition, and by inevitable conse- 
quence with motive and intellect, and with all those 
attributes of mind in which personality consists * 

^ It matters not that we are ignorant of the mode 
in which this is performed. It suffices to bring the 
origination of dynamical power, to however small 
extent, within the domain of acknowledged person- 
ahty. In that peculiar mental sensation, clear to the 
apprehension of every one who has ever performed 
a voluntary act, which is present at the instant when 
the determination to do a thing is carried out with the 
act of doing it, we have a consciousness of immediate 
and personal causation which cannot be disputed or 
ignored." 

From the point of our own conscious, derived per- 
sonal power, unconscious, impersonal, underived 
Power IS unthinkable. Personality, as we have said, 
IS but a name given to the cumulative attributes of 
lile will, intelligence and consciousness ; just as we 
call the combination of oxygen and hydrogen, water 
or as we call the roots, trunk, branches, top of a tree' 
a tree. ' 

Consciousness and personality are one and the 
same. Consciousness that we have considered, cov- 
ers the whole idea of personality that we are now 
considering. We but use a different word for the 
same idea. Consciousness is the one, highest human 



38 The Philosophy of the SttpernaHtraL 



attribute ; and personality implies the sum of all the 
attributes of life, will, intelligence, and consciousness. 
There can be life, will, and inteUigence, as in the 
horse, without consciousness; but there cannot be 
consciousness, as in man, without life, will and intelli- 
gence. 

The admission of science, as expressed by Prof. 
Tyndall and by Mr. Spencer, that life depends on 
antecedent life, carries with it the admission that life 
with will, intelligence and consciousness, depends on 
antecedent life, will, intelligence and consciousness ; 
and this is all that is meant by personality ; and all 
that is affirmed by religion. If human, conscious 
power, as the culmination of human intelligence, will, 
and life is dependent on antecedent superhuman con- 
scious Power, inteUigence, will and life, there need be 
no further proof that human personality is dependent 
on, and proves superhuman personality. 

Consciousness, as the highest entity, is called per- 
sonal, to distinguish it from a large class of uncon- 
scious things, classified as impersonal, because uncon- 
scious. These impersonal things are without life, as 
. the stone ; or with life, as the tree ; or with life, will, 
and intelligence, as the horse. But, not thinking 
about his thoughts, so far as is known, or not know- 
ing that he knows, the horse, with life, will and intel- 
ligence, but wanting consciousness, is not a person, 
but only a thing not-personal. Man, however, has not 
only life, will, intelligence, or thoughts, but he thinks 
about his thoughts -he knows that he knows — in 
other words, he is conscious, and therefore is a per- 
son. If life depends on antecedent life, a fortiori, 
conscious power depends on antecedent conscious 



Personality fi^oin Perso7iality. 39 



Power. Human consciousness develops as human 
life develops. As the perfection of one, so is the per- 
fection of the other. So that human consciousness or 
personality proves superhuman consciousness or per- 
sonality, if we accept, as valid, Prof. Tyndall's scien- 
tific denial of spontaneous generation as we have seen ; 
and also his doctrine, that all life depends on antece- 
dent life. Thus, human life has its antecedent in 
^ superhuman life; and, as human life has will, its an- 
tecedent superhuman life has will ; and, as human life 
has intelligence, its antecedent superhuman life has 
. intelligence ; and, as human life is conscious, its ante- 
cedent, superhuman life is conscious. As human life 
having these attributes of life, will, intelligence, and 
consciousness, is called personal, so its antecedent 
superhuman life, being the source of these attributes 
in man, must be called personal. 

Where there is no life, as is the case of the inor- 
ganic atom, there can be no derivation of like from 
like; but only a causation of unlike from unlike. One 
lifeless atom is not derived from another lifeless atom, 
but is caused by adequate Power; but where there is 
life, there is derivation either by direct emanation or 
transmission from the infinite to the finite, or indi- 
rectly, like from like, by genetic function. Having 
considered consciousness and unconsciousness as to 
unlimited Power, let us now turn to the consideration 
of consciousness and unconsciousness as attributes 
respectively of limited persons and things. If the 
antecedent of conscious person is conscious Power, 
must the antecedent of unconscious things be an un- 
conscious Power? By no means; for. 



! 






40 The Philosophy of the Sttpernaturat. 



{c) The order of manifestation, whether by causa- 
tion or by derivation, is, 

First, as something cannot come out of nothing, to 
magnify the effect is to maximize the cause : 8+2= 10. 
As you add to the subsequent you must add to the 
antecedent— the greater manifests the less ; in other 
words. Power is greater than its manifestations. 
The infinite Subject manifests the finite object — 
the Noumenon manifests the phenomenon. The 
circle includes its diameter, chords, and segments: 
a gallon measure is never from a pint cup: there 
must be a whole before there can be a part. This, 
of course, applies to unlimited. Power and its limit- 
ed manifestations. To unlimited Power itself, there 
is neither greater nor less. Unlimited Power is sim- 
ply unlimited Power. From the conscious, de- 
rived power of life in man, we prove conscious, 
underived life as antecedent in unlimited Power. 
Power must come from Power. Could limited, hu- 
man, conscious life, come from an unlimited, antece- 
dent, superhuman, unconscious life?- We say, no; 
for that superhuman, antecedent life on which Prof. 
T. says all subsequent human life depends, must be 
altogether conscious or altogether unconscious. If 
it is altogether unconscious, then this superhuman 
unconscious Power manifested human conscious 
power. The powerless could not manifest the pow- 
erful. But, that is impossible ; for as finite knowledge 
is supreme over infinite nescience, so a great effect 
could not come out of a less cause. But, suppose 
that human finite conscious power proves superhu- 
man, infinite, conscious Power, there could not be 
infinite unconscious Power, for there cannot be two 



Great Effects imply Greater Causes. 41 



infinities. Did eternal and infinite consciousness 
come out of eternal and infinite unconsciousness? 
In the same abstract subject, unconsciousness is the 
absence of consciousness; and consciousness could 
not come out of its own absence. 

The conscious Power, unlimited in time and space, 
that we claim to have proved, that knows everything-, 
cannot be derived from itself as a Power unlimited 
in time and space in an unconscious state, that knows 
nothing-. Assuming that conscious Power is su- 
preme over an imaginary unconscious power, the 
one unlimited Power must be conscious, not only 
because, on lines of life, like is from like, as con- 
scious human life from conscious superhuman life, 
but because, if conscious persons came from uncon- 
scious Power, whether as an effect from a cause, the 
derived from the underived, as a manifestation of 
Power, the effect would be greater than its cause— 
the derived would be greater than the underived— 
the manifestation would be greater than the mani- 
festing Power. But to say that the derived is less 
than the underived, is axiomatic, and covers all facts. 
The manifestations are less than the manifesting Pow- 
er—the limited than the unlimited— the particular 
than the universal— the unconscious than the con- 
scious—the relative than the absolute. We see that 
unlimited Power limited its manifestation in the first 
atom, by withholding life and intelligence. But as a 
limited atom did not exhaust unlimited Power, so, un- 
limited Power manifested something more of itself 
when it organized the atoms by manifesting vegetable 
life. Still, Power was greater than its manifestations. 
Power manifested animal, individual life, will and in- 



42 The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 



telligence. Still Power was greater than its manifes- 
tation. But, far more than all was Power greater 
than its manifestation, when, in man, it manifested 
life, will, intelligence and consciousness— in other 
words, when limited human life and consciousness 
was derived from unlimited superhuman life and 
consciousness. We are always going back to some- 
thing greater than we know. The boundary of the 
Infinite ever recedes as we approach it. Thus the 
Eternal marks off segments of itself, and we call it 
Time. We look at the Infinite through a reversed 
telescope, and call it finite; but in all things and 
everywhere, Power is greater than its manifestations. 
If we trace human life— intelligent, conscious voli- 
tional and personal— back along its endless line of 
antecedent life, must not its intelligence, will, con- 
sciousness, and personality go back all along the line 
with it? How, where, when, and why stop or sepa- 
rate them ? Shall they be in the subsequent and not 
in the antecedent? in the derived greater than in the 
underived ? Power is life and will and mind. Who 
can prove that gravitation and other forces in matter 
are not modes or movements of supernatural life, in- 
teUigence, and will of the one unlimited Power? 
This unlimited Power has both life and mind; for it 
is neither blind as a force, nor unintelligent in its 
method. If it were, its phenomena could not be 
scientifically studied. Gravitation is not blind, but 
always pulls directly as to mass and inversely as to 
the square of the distance. Nor is chemic affinity 
blind ; for it never combines three parts by weight 
of oxygen to two parts of hydrogen when it pro- 
duces water. Nor are the methods of Power blind ; 



Personality from Personality. 4 



■^ 
a 



for in evolution as defined by Mr. Spencer, matter in- 
tegrates only as motion dissipates. What we call 
blind force sees its way free of all rriistakes or irreg- 
ularities. Life must be conscious to be human. If 
science will adhere to its emphatic denial of spon- 
taneous generation and to its doctrine of the depend- 
ance of all life upon antecedent life, as formulated by 
Prof. Tyndall, we must come back to the old doctrine 
of the production of effects from causes, and see 
that all along lines of life, like is always from like. 
Life goes back to life, consciousness to consciousness, 
the personal to the personal, until lines of derivation 
vanish in the Infinite. As we have said one primary 
element like carbon or oxygen is not from another 
primary element. Neither element by itself is a 
cause or an effect. As unconsciousness is nothing 
but the absence of consciousness, and as impersonal- 
ity is nothing but the absence of personality, so hu- 
man personal power must come from superhuman 
personal Power ; because as superhuman impersonal 
Power is merely the absence of superhuman personal 
power, superhuman personal power cannot be derived 
from its own absence. Unlimited Power is one; 
subtract its personal power, and there remains nothing. 
From nothing, nothing can come. 

Neither the not-personal nor the not-conscious can 
be a factor or cause ; for being nothing, they can do 
nothing. That which does, is that which is ; but un- 
consciousness as such, and impersonality as such, are 
nothing ; and the power of nothing is nothing. We 
prove the derivation of human conscinusness or per- 
sonahty from superhuman consciousness or person- 
ality upon the derivative principle of like from like, 



44 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



and upon the principle common to both derivative 
and causative manifestations, of the less from the 
greater — the less effect from the greater cause, or 
the less manifestation from the greater Power. Thus 
superhuman consciousness or personality is greater 
than human consciousness or personality and cannot 
be derived from it ; and human consciousness or per- 
sonality is greater than subhuman things that are 
not-conscious or not-personal and cannot be derived 
from them. The less, therefore, must come from the 
greater, and not the greater from the less. 

Besides, as we have seen unconsciousness to be 
only the absence of consciousness, so impersonality 
is only the absence of personality ; and we say here, 
as we said of consciousness, a present personality 
cannot come from a negation of personality — that 
is, positive personality cannot be derived from its 
negative, impersonality. A thing cannot be derived 
from that which is not. Unconsciousness, or imper- 
sonality are not entities, but only the negation, or 
absence of the entities, consciousness or personality. 
Conscious personality cannot be derived from uncon- 
scious impersonality; for the conscious personality 
would be a greater from a less. 

The relation of evolution to religion is thus seen to 
depend upon the answer to the question : Is super- 
human power personal or impersonal? If the power 
is impersonal, like impersonal power in the main 
spring of a watch, with the maker of the spring out 
of our mind, there would be but one mechanical 
method, and nothing for religion. But, if, as we see 
all around us, there is one free, superhuman Will, this 
is a God, with everything for religion. In the deriva- 



Personality from Personality. 



45 



tive continuity of heredity, like must be from like 
Derived human personality implies underived su- 
perhuraan personality. Here the less is from the 
greater. Here the look is a posteriori from a personal 
man back to a personal God. A human personality 
as a present fact, proves a superhuman personality as 
a past Factor. We must suppose that man was cre- 
ated to be a genetic creator of men ; for such he is 
. now ; and we must suppose that man was created 
to be what he is. There are no mistakes in nature 
Creneration is a human mode of creation, as cre- 
ation IS a superhuman mode of Power. If we are 
created, we can be personal like our Creator if He 
50 chooses ; or, if we are generated, we must be per- 
sonally like our ancestor, or like from like. We are 
persons whether created or generated ; and we must 
nave a Creator or a Father. 

Personal nature and not-personal nature are both 
tacts ; but It IS personal nature only that knows any- 
thing of the not-personal nature ; or, to state it other- 
wise, we cannot declare a thing to be unless it is known 
to be ; therefore nature cannot be said to be impersonal 
umess there is a personal nature to know and say it 
Impersonality converts or evolves itself into person- 
ality when It speaks of itself. 

The personality of God is one of the vexed and ob- 
scure theological and philosophical points discussed 
by John Fiske in his book on the " Idea of God " 
" To every form of theism, as I have already urged 
an anthropomorphic element is indispensable." He 
says " It is quite true, on the other hand, that to 
ascribe what we know as human personality to the 
infanite Deity, straightway lands us in a contradic- 



46 The Philosophy of the SttpernaturaL 



tion, since personality without limit is inconceivable. 
But, on the other hand, it is no less true that the total 
elimination of anthropomorphism from the idea of 
God abolishes the idea itself. We do not approach 
the question in the spirit of those natural theologians 
who were so ready with their explanations of the 
Divine purposes. We are aware that 'we see as 
through a glass darkly,' and we do not expect to 
' think God's thoughts after Him,' save in the crudest 
symbolic fashion. In dealing with the Infinite we are 
confessedly treating of that which transcends our 
powers of conception. Our ability to frame ideas is 
strictly limited by experience, and our experience 
does not furnish the materials for the idea of a per-, 
sonality which is not narrowly hemmed in by the 
inexorable barriers of circumstance. We therefore 
cannot conceive of such an idea. But it does not 
follow that there is no reality answering to what such 
an idea would be if it could be conceived. The test 
of inconceivability is only applicable to the world of 
phenomena from which our experience is gathered. 
It fails when applied to that which lies behind phe- 
nomena. I do not hold, for this reason, that we are 
justified in usmg such an expression as ' infinite per- 
sonality ' in a philosophical inquiry where clearness 
of thought and speech is above all things desirable. 
But I do hold, emphatically, that we are not debarred 
from ascribing a quasi psychical nature to the Deity 
simply because we can frame no proper conception 
of such a nature as absolute and infinite." 

But we can conceive the idea of omnipresent per- 
sonality as clearly as we can that of omnipresent 
space, or of Power; and one is no less incomprehen- 



Omnipresent Personality. a-j 



sible than the other. Indeed, they are but names for 
one and the same Power. Power is omnipresent, so 
IS Space, Time, life, mind, will, consciousness and 
personality, whether comprehensible or incorapre 
hensible. We derive only power. 

Mr Spencer says (F. P., § 20), " The personality of 
which each IS conscious, and of which the existence 
IS to each a fact beyond all others the most certain 
. IS yet a thing which cannot be truly known at all • 
knowledge of it is forbidden by the very nature of 
bought. So, the inference is, that as we cannot 
truly know ourselves, we cannot know the Power 
not-ourselves. But religion would be content to 
know this Power as well as we know ourselves The 
unit that pluralizes is a unit of Power ; and there is 
no power in the unconscious. From the one Power 
came many manifestations. In man, impersonal mat- 
ter IS manifested along with personal mind, and un- 
conscious impersonal force; such as animal heat 
along with conscious, personal power, such as thought 
and will. If there is anything in the effect that is in 
the cause, then human personality, as an effect is 
from superhuman personality as its cause. If it be 
insisted that impersonal matter and unconscious force 
are manifestations of an impersonal and unconscious 
Power, like from like, then it is claimed a fortiori, 
that conscious, personal human mind and will are 
manifestations of a conscious, personal superhuman 
mind and will. If the cause is greater than its effects 
— the underived greater than the derived — then 
human consciousness is from superhuman conscious- 
ness and not from a non-existing superhuman, imper- 
sonal unconsciousness ; for this would be to make the 



48 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



cause less than the effect-indeed to have an effect 
from no cause at all ; for unconsciousness is only a 
negative state, and not a power, and cannot be either 
cause or effect. Unconsciousness, the negative of 
consciousness, cannot be higher than the conscious- 
ness of which it is the negative. Thus the philo- 
sophical bridge between human personality and su- 
perhuman personality, is, first, in the admitted prin- 
ciple, that the cause is both simpler and greater than 
the effect ; and, second, in the proof of the unity of 
natural force and supernatural Power, and m the de- 
pendence of life upon antecedent life — that is, of 
natural life upon supernatural life. If this be not so, 
we must altogether discard a posteriori reasoning. 

As personal beings are from personal beings, so 
personal being must be originally from personal 
Being. Personality objective in human bemgs is 
subjective personality in superhuman Power. Sub- 
jective Power manifests, or objectifies itself, in imper- 
sonal things and personal beings; the subjective is 
known in the objective. If Power was first, and at 
first Power was all, as said before, Power either cre- 
ated matter or materialized itself, for there is matter; 
Power either created mind or mentalized itself, for 
there is mind ; Power either created fife or vitalized 
itself, for there is life ; Power either created persons 
or personalized itself, for there is personality. If, as 
we have said, cause is greater than its effects, then 
the cause of matter is greater than matter its effect ; 
the cause of fife is greater than life its effect ; the 
cause of consciousness is greater than consciousness 
its effect; the cause of human personality is greater 
than human personaUty its effect. But only super- 



To Reduce the Cause Reduces the Effect. 49 



human personality is greater than human personality. 
As positive personality from a negative imperson- 
ality, or, rather a thing present from itself absent, 
would be the greater from the less, which is impossi- 
ble, so, the less is from the greater, when we say that, 
Second, having seen that to magnify the effect is 
to maximize the cause, so, as nothing cannot produce 
something, to minify the cause is to minimize the 
effect : as 10 - 2 = 8. As you subtract from the an- 
tecedent you subtract from the subsequent. Equals 
must be added to equals, or equals must be taken from 
equals, the less is manifested by the greater— that is, 
the manifestations of Power are less than the mani' 
festing Power. If natural impersonality, as the nega- 
tion or absence of personality in things is called, were 
derived from supernatural personality, such a deriva- 
tion, if it were possible, would be consistent with the 
principle of the less from the greater. Keeping in 
mmd, that what we call impersonality, whether hu- 
man or superhuman, is only the negative or absence 
of personality, human or superhuman, we see that 
impersonality, whether human or superhuman, is only 
where personality is not Impersonality could not 
come from impersonality; for, if impersonality — a 
negative — were to come from impersonality —an- 
other negative— it would be a negative from a nega- 
tive ; which is absurd. 

As human personality is inherited from human 
personality as far back as human personality can be 
traced, is not human personality derived from super- 
human personality, or phenomenal personality from 
nomenal personality ? The derivation of personality 
from impersonality, if it were possible, would have 

4 



50 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



to be strongly proved, in order to disprove the law 
and fact of heredity of like from like ; but, if like is 
not from like, and personality is from impersonality, 
then, in unlike from unlike, the Creator is impersonal 
instead of personal, and agnosticism dreads an im- 
personal Power where religion worships a personal 
God. But a conscious effect called personality, can- 
not come from an unconscious cause called imperson- 
ality, as the effect would be greater than the cause; 
but a conscious cause does produce an unconscious 
effect, and the effect is less than the cause. Uncon- 
sciousness, unknown to itself, is known only to con- 
sciousness. 

Mr. Spencer says, '' Some make the erroneous 
assumption that the choice is between personality 
and something lower than personality ; whereas the 
choice is rather between personality and something 
higher. Is it not just possible that there is a mode of 
being as much transcending intelligence and Will as 
these transcend mechanical motion ? It is true that 
we are totally unable to conceive any such higher 
being. But this is not a reason for questioning its 
existence ; it is rather the reverse. Have we not seen 
how utterly incompetent our minds are to form even 
an approach to a conception of that which underlies 
all phenomena ? Is it not proved that this incompe- 
tency is the incompetency of the conditioned to grasp 
the unconditioned ? Does it not follow that the ulti- 
mate cause cannot in any respect be conceived of by 
us because it is in every respect greater than can be 
conceived? And may we not therefore rightly re- 
frain from assigning to it any attributes whatever. 



Consciottsness is Personality, 5 1 



on the ground that such attributes, derived as they 
must be, from our own natures, are not elevations, 
but degradations ? Indeed it seems somewhat strange 
that men should suppose the highest worship to lie 
in assimilating the object of their worship to them- 
selves." (F. P., §31.) 

But why not hope to assimilate ourselves below 
to an object of worship above ? Of course, human 
personality is in his mind ; but is not superhuman 
personality that very something higher than hu- 
man personality, to which he alludes? What is 
personality? We talk about persons and things. 
What is the difference? That which is not one, is 
the other. Why is a man a person, and an intelli- 
gent brute, and unintelligent objects only things? 
As said before, the man thinks. The brute thinks. 
The man thinks about his thoughts, or is conscious, 
and for that reason is a person. The brute thinks, but 
does not think about his thoughts, or is not conscious, 
so far as we have ascertained, and for that reason is 
only a thing. We know nothing in nature higher 
than consciousness. But to repeat, if there is con- 
sciousness above human consciousness, why should 
not such superhuman consciousness constitute super- 
human personality, as human consciousness consti- 
tutes human personality? Is there any more reason 
for personality in nature than there is reason for it in 
supernature? If superhuman consciousness be ad- 
mitted, or proved, why should superhuman person- 
ality be denied ? Personality does not ascend from 
man to God, but descends from God to man. His 
personality is underived and infinite ; our personality 



52 The Philosophy of the Supernahcral. 



is derived and finite. God is not like us ; but we are 
as shadows self-cast from God. He was not made in 
our image, but we are made in His. Mr. Spencer 
admits both nature and supernature. Which begets 
the other? As the greater contains the less, so super- 
nature contains and manifests nature. Therefore, if 
God, supposing Him to be conscious, from having 
given us consciousness, is not personal in His con- 
sciousness, we are not personal in our consciousness ; 
but as we are from Him, if our consciousness makes 
us personal, why does not His consciousness make 
Him personal? Is nature parent or child ? Did the 
universe begin in the finite, or in the infinite ? If in 
the finite, then our personality is at the angle whose 
sides open out to the infinite. If man began in the 
infinite, then man's personality is the vanishing point 
of God's personality. It depends upon whether we 
look into or out of the angle, as to whose personality 
is before us. The method of nature, according to the 
theory of atheistic evolution, has been from the im- 
personal to the personal ; for personal man is here. 
In the future progress of man, which evolution makes 
inevitable, is our present human personality to go 
forward to a superhuman personality or to a super- 
human impersonality ? Which exalts the more ? We 
must remember that, in evolution, '' progress is not 
an accident, but a necessity." (Spencer, Social Sci- 
ence, p. 78.) Mr. Spencer said that '' it seems some- 
what strange that men should suppose the highest 
worship to lie in assimilating the object of their wor- 
ship to themselves." But it is not strange that men 
should suppose that the highest worship lies in as- 



Perso7tality is Derived from Personality. 5 



similating the object of their worship to themselves." 
The struggle is to lift our personality towards His ; 
to get something exalting from him. We think him' 
perfect in that which we are imperfect. We accept 
our personality as a profert of His personality. As 
conscious intelligence constitutes us persons, we as- 
cribe personality to Him from whom these and all 
things come to us. Religion worships the parental 
Being, whether personal or impersonal ; but consti- 
tuted as we are, we cannot worship or feel account- 
able to a mere abstraction— an impersonal, blind, un- 
intelligent Power. We are accustomed to associate 
authority with personality, and to look to this Super- 
nal Power as ''touched with a feeling of our infirm- 
ity." Beyond this question of worship, the person- 
ality of Power, is a mere idle inquiry to religion. 

Has science more reason to impersonalize force, in 
the face of our personal force, that religion has' to 
personalize it? Indeed, science can neither affirm 
Its impersonality nor deny its personality, as it con- 
fesses its entire ignorance of the whole subject. 
Upon this question, the true scientific attitude of sci- 
ence is ignorant silence. 

If human personality is derived, it must be, on the 
principle of like from like, from a superhuman person- 
ality. If human personality is not derived by evolu- 
tion it must be produced by original creation ; and 
creation implies a creator. 

If human personality be not derived from super- 
human personality, it could not be derived from su- 
perhuman impersonality; for the greater would be 
from the less, and a thing present from itself absent. 



54 The Philosophy of the Super 7taturaL 



If the eternal is one, and Personality and imperson- 
ality are not two eternal and different things, which 
is from the other? A few atheistic scientists assume 
the impersonality, while the many theistic scientists 
claim to prove the personality of the Factor of all 
facts, by the very facts themselves. 

Evolution claims that the eternal and universal in- 
stability of the homogeneous ever seeking an impos- 
sible equilibrium, produces the heterogeneous— some- 
thing unlike itself. How, then, does it account for 
the law of heredity, of like from like? The princi- 
ples are directly contradictory, and so far as one is 
true the other must be untrue, unless unified in a su- 
pernatural Factor. To give up the differentiation of 
the heterogeneous from the homogeneous, gives up 
the whole theory of evolution for one of creation 
where things originate in a Power unlike themselves 
and to adhere to it, gives up the whole theory of 
heredity, or of like from like. Did human personal- 
ity come from superhuman impersonality under the 
law of heterogeneity from homogeneity, or did it come 
from superhuman personality under the hereditary 
law of like from like? If it began under the law of 
unlikeness, how did it get under the law of likeness? 
Now, in the universe there is personal nature, and 
there is impersonal nature ; but one is not the other. 
Impersonal nature cannot do what personal nature 
does, and personal nature cannot be what impersonal 
nature is. If, upon the principle of unlikeness, as be- 
tween the mould and the bullet, or the coin and the 
die, personal nature came from impersonal nature, 
then, upon the same principle of unlikeness, imper- 



Evolution by Extriiisic Power, 5 5 



sonal nature came from personal nature. But if, 
upon the principle of like from like, impersonal 
nature came from impersonal nature, then, as said a 
few pages back, upon the same principle, personal 
nature in man came from a higer personal nature in 
God. 

Evolutionary changes from uniformity to multi- 
formity, in all things without life, as from minerals to 
vegetables, are creative, not genetic ; and the advance 
isper saltum, by extrinsic power. Heredity alone is 
directly genetic, and indirectly creative. All un- 
mixed matter, such as oxygen and hydrogen, is both 
homogeneous and inert. To these homogeneous gases, 
some extrinsic power first gives instabihty, by over- 
coming their inertia ; and then, by dissipating their 
motion, integrates them into heterogeneous water. 
In more technical phraseology, extrinsic power for 
these, and all other elements of matter, directly cre- 
ates the instability of the homogeneous; and, indi- 
rectly, through the instability of the homogeneous, 
the same extrinsic power creates the heterogeneous. 
The same intrinsic power creatively dissipates motion, 
and, through the dissipation of motion, the same ex- 
trinsic power integrates matter. Extrinsic power, 
known as a single cause, creates a multiplicity of ef- 
fects. Extrinsic power, out of incoherence creates 
coherence ; and out of the infinite creates the definite. 
Here is a creative, not a genetic line of advance. 
Hence, theistic evolution is simply a method of progress, 
PER SALTUM, by extrinsic creative power. 

Now, if the personality of this creative power be 
denied, its impersonality will be assumed ; and the 



56 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

same necessity of progress that moved impersonal 
nature on to personal nature in man, must move it 
on to a personal supernature in God. Here the a 
priori look is from a personal man on to a personal 
God. 

The unintelligent impersonal necessity that did not 
know how to begin, does not know how to stop. If 
supernature did not originate nature, nature must 
originate supernature. In other words, if a personal 
God did not make impersonal nature, impersonal 
nature must make a personal God— there is a per- 
sonal God at one end or the other of this line of evo- 
lution. The materialists insist upon the imperson- 
ality of the Factor of all facts ; and offer, in proof, 
two conflicting theories of nature. 

The first theory claims that uniform law is the im- 
personal factor of all facts, like conditions producing 
like results. In this sense, law is only an impersonal 
method of impersonal power, and not the power it- 
self. Method governs nothing and produces nothing. 
But, if we can judge as to what law is in nature 
without by the light of our own consciousness with- 
in, law is personal Will. This will may act with or 
without conditions ; but, in itself. Will has no condi- 
tions. The method of law is only the uniformity of 
will, and its power is the diversity of will. In a 
word, can impersonal law account for the fact of 
human personality ? 

The second theory of an impersonal Factor of all 
facts, including the fact of our personality, is that of 
impersonal evolution which we have been consider- 
ing. Its leading idea is, that in the instability of the 



Difference Between Law and Evolutio 



n. 5; 



universe (called the instability of the homogeneous) 
things are agitated and changed into the condition 
we find them without the agency of a personal or 
even a supernatural Factor. 

According to these two impersonal agencies, Law 
is a method of impersonal repetition, and Evolution 
is a method of impersonal development ; but, if every- 
thing is repeated under law, then nothing is devel- 
oped under evolution ; and vice versa, if everything is 
developed under evolution, nothing is repeated under 
law. Both theories seem to be true but contradic- 
tory. But, evolution proves, as we have seen, a 
personal not an impersonal Factor. 

The phenomena of the universe exhibits a fixed, 
mechanical method, and a free, voluntary method- 
fixed as in law, when, like a compass describing the 
same circle, like conditions always producing like 
results; and free, as in evolution, when, like the 
changes in the kaleidoscope, no combinations are 
ever repeated. The apparent contradictions of the 
universe all disappear under the management of a 
personal God. Law has a free Law-giver, and Evo- 
lution has a free Evolver. 

If things are in the present as they have been in 
the past, then, the conscious (personal) is from the 
conscious (personal) ; but, if things in the present are 
not as they have been in the past, and the conscious 
comes from the unconscious— that is, things present 
come from themselves absent (as the unconscious is 
only the absence of the conscious)— when did things 
change, and what power changed them ? and was it 
intrinsic or extrinsic ? 



58 The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 



It is said that consciousness affirms personalty, 
but cannot cognize it— think of it — formulate it, or 
make it, in logical order, the starting point of knowl- 
edge of anything outside or above itself. But con- 
sciousness is personality. Personality is consciousness 
and nothing more. What is knowledge? Knowl- 
edge is of two kinds, that of the ego, and that of the 
non-ego. Knowledge of the ego is consciousness, 
and is siii generis— \t is the highest kind of knowledge, 
without either subject or object. We do not agree 
with Mansel when he says of consciousness ; " that it 
is only possible in the form of a relation. There 
must be a subject, or person conscious, and an ob- 
ject, or thing of which he is conscious. There can be 
no consciousness without the union of these two 
factors ; and, in that union, each exists only as it is 
related to the other. The subject is a subject, only 
so far as it is conscious of an object ; the object is an 
object, only so far as it is apprehended by a subject : 
and the destruction of either is the destruction of 
consciousness itself." (Limits of Thought. Lect. ill, 
p. 96.) Not at all. Just the reverse. There is in- 
formation but no consciousness where there is subject 
and object. Consciousness is the knowledge of our- 
selves by ourselves. We are no subject, beause we 
need no object ; and we have no object, because there 
is no subject. We ourselves, not as subject, know 
ourselves, but not as object. If we cannot say that 
the ego in itself is absolute, neither can we say that 
the ego in itself is relative. As in itself the ego is 
not relative, so, in itself, the ego can be neither sub- 
ject nor object. There need be only ourselves to 



Powej^ is the Unit that Phiralizes. 59 



know ourselves ; but to know others, there must be 
ourselves as subject in order to know others as ob- 
jects. The conscious ego does not annihilate either 
subject or object, because as to it, there never has 
been either. 

According to evolution, the unit that pluralizes is 
not a unit of matter, nor a unit of mind, nor a unit of 
Being, but it is a unit of Power. But, if Power be 
the fons et origio, it personalizes ; for there are per- 
sons. Who makes One to be All — all matter, all 
mind, all Power— or Who makes All to be One— one 
matter, one mind, or one Power, as Hege] taught? 
It is evident that things are governed ; but who gov- 
erns? Nearly all systems of philosophy discuss only 
the methods, not the origins by Power. With these 
systems it is the having proved, the What, not the 
who or the why. Mr. Spencer, with whom evolution 
is only a process of power, says, '' The universe is a 
manifestation of immanent force." Does the force 
manifest its own matter, or does matter manifest its 
own force. 

When Mr. Spencer says that all things are mani- 
festations of a Power that transcends our knowledge, 
he affirms with Hegel, that All are from One — that 
this One is Power — that this Power transcends our 
knowledge. According to this non-theistic evolution, 
all things, of course, include all inorganic and or- 
ganic matter and forms --all thoughts and feelings 
— all tendencies and events — all experiences and 
destinies. 

Does he mean by manifestations that what is here 
called creation, is by a Power ab extra ? or does he 



6o The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



mean that manifestation is what he calls Evolution, 
by Power ab i7ifra^ but which the Buddhist calls 
emanation ? 

Agnostic scientists are not agreed among them- 
selves as to whether the manifesting Power is extrin- 
sic or intrinsic. For instance, Mr. S. says, '' we are 
obliged to regard every phenomenon as a manifesta- 
tion of some Power by which we are acted upon'* 
(F. P., § 27.) And again : '' The tendency to progress 
from homogeneity to heterogenity is not intrinsic but 
extrinsic." (Pop. Sci., Nov., 1880, p. 106.) From 
these statements we learn that Power is ab extra. 
But then Mr. Spencer seems to contradict himself 
when he says, '' I recognize no forces within the or- 
ganism or without the organism, but the variously- 
conditioned modes of the universal, immanent force; 
and the whole process of organic evolution is every, 
where attributed by me to the co-operation of its 
variously-conditioned modes, internal and external." 
(i Biol., 491.) What then is the meaning of his doc- 
trine, that all accountable and natural facts are proved 
to be in their ultimate genesis unaccountable and 
sitpernaturaU Is this immanent force from whose 
modes, variously-conditioned, proceeds all organic 
evolution, natural or supernatural ? If nature and 
supernature are not the same, to which belongs evo- 
lution ? 

Mr. Tyndall says, that '' Science rejects the outside 
builder." (Pop. Sci., Jan., 1879, p. 274.) And, yet, 
what is not an outside builder to something else? 
The sun is an outside builder to all things ; it paints 
the leaf, it perfumes the rose, it creates the wind, it 



Force is Specialized Power, 6 1 



bridles the planets, it reveals and quickens and glori- 
fies all. All external, controlling Power is super- 
natural to the nature which it controls. The sun is 
supernatural to its planets. That external Power 
which controls the sun in nature, is supernatural to 
the sun, and so on back ad infinitum. We must either 
deny all external control of anything in nature, or 
admit a Power supernatural to nature, which con- 
. trols. If all things in nature are the manifestations 
of Power, then, unless Power and the manifestations 
of Power are one and the same, unlimited Power 
must be supernatural to its limited manifestations. 

We may regard Power as the fountain of all forces 
Force is specialized Power. Specialized Power is 
named differently according to different uses or mani- 
festations. One manifestation of supernatural Power 
is called the force of gravitation— another manifesta- 
tion is called the force of heat-another is called the 
force of electricity — another is called the force of 
chemic affinity. The unit Power when pluralized and 
as the latter incomprehensibility of God without 
matter individualized in manifestation is called Force. 
Two incomprehensibilities are propounded to ac- 
count for the partially comprehended facts of nature 
One IS the incomprehensibility of eternal matter with- 
out God, and the other is the incomprehensibility of 
an eternal God without matter. The Theist holds that 
a personal God created matter out of nothing; while 
the pantheist holds that an impersonal God converted 
himself into matter-in other words he contends that 
It there is a God, there is no matter, and if there is 
matter, there is no God. Which is the greater in- 



62 The Philosophy of the Super7tahcraL 



comprehensibility ? We must stand by facts as we 

ascertain them. 

Unintelligent, impersonal evolution is like a blmd 
painter, working upon creations he cannot see, or like 
an insane logician wandering after reasons he does 
not comprehend. Such evolution is impossible. We 
cannot see that which does not exist. If we see rea- 
son in nature there must be reason in nature. If we 
see a plan, then there is a plan. Nature without a 
plan is more incomprehensible than nature with a 
^plan. We cannot deny what we see. We cannot 
deny what we prove ; we cannot prove that which 
does not exist. Reason cannot deny the reason that 
reason sees. If mind is an effect, it is the effect of 
some greater Mind or cause. One great cause differ- 
entiates into many minor effects. The many parts 
imply the one whole— Division imphes unity. The 
special derivation implies an underived generality. 
One Power makes many manifestations; such as the 
power to live, the power to will, the power to think, 
the power to be conscious, or, which is the same 
thing, the power to be personal. We repeat, if there 
is reason or intelligence in nature, then unmtelligent 
evolution is impossible. Unintelligent evolution is a 
blind process, and not an intelligent method. What- 
ever it is, it is an eternal necessity in which there is 
no creation because everything is eternal, and noth- 
ing is new. 

Where we find anything, we find some mystery ot 
Power, which, in itself, the thing is not-a somethmg 
of the supernatural, for which, supernature personal- 
ized, the word God is the symbol. Religion simply 



Evil is in Human Will, 63 



adores the Personal Presence of whatever is admit- 
ted to be at the background of the universe, whether 
It be called law, cause, force or being. And a per- 
sonal omnipresence is no more incomprehensible than 
an impersonal omnipresence. Nature is the known 
method of self-revealed Supernatural Power. To 
deny the Power is to deny the method. 

Some deny that there is any Supernatural Person 
. or personal God, because there is evil in the world. 
But whether Supernature is personal or impersonal, 
evil IS not its work ; for nothing that is supernatural 
can be evil. Some supernatural Power commands 
man to do or not to do certain things, and urges 
motives for the one and against the other. The sov- 
ereignty of God (using that term as the symbol of a 
supernatural person) includes man's freedom; or 
rather God as a sovereign act, made man free. ' As 
evil, in the sense of sin is the act of will, so individ- 
ual evil is the act of individual will. Human evil be- 
gan, continues and ends with the human will. When 
the human will shall fully obey the superhuman will, 
all evil will cease. As there can be no science of 
Being (God), yet there is a science of the method of 
God in matter. The difference between science and 
religion is, that science is limited to the part, and re- 
hgion extends to the conceivable whole. 

If we have reached, logically, the proof of a super- 
natural Person whom we call God, as a verbal sym- 
bol of Power, is it illogical to affirm that God, as un- 
embodied power, may be, if He so please, the God 
of embodied, or Incarnate Goodness, whom we call 
Christ? If God is manifested Power in his imper- 



64 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



sonal Works, why should He not be manifest Love, 
in His Personal Son? Indeed, the one is no more 
incomprehensible than the other. 

7. The supernatural Power is one Power. The man- 
ifesting Power is one — monistic ; not two — dualistic ; 
nor many — pluralistic. There can be no quality or 
plurality of Time, Space, Power, or eternal duration. 
We have said that supernatural evolution is infinite 
Power manifesting- a finite Method ; but the Power 
and a Method are relatively one as the substance and 
the shadow are one. God is all, or God creates all. 
The Power to be a thing is the power to create it. 
Of the two incomprehensibilities, it is more unthink- 
able that God should be a bird, a bug or a stone, than 
that he should create them. He can be that which 
He does not choose to create, and He can create that 
which he does not choose to be. The secret of 
which, is with Him. 

As we understand the theory of agnostic evolution, 
all things are eternally evolved from underived neces- 
sary unity, or from underived necessary plurality. 
But nothing could be evolved from underived plural- 
ity, for plurality itself was evolved from the unde- 
rived unity ; therefore underived unity excludes unde- 
rived plurality. 

8. Siipernataral Power is one Being. Herbert Spen- 
cer says, '' The axiomatic truths of physical science, 
unavoidably postulate Absolute Being as their com- 
mon basis. * * * We cannot construct a theory 
of internal phenomena without postulatinoj Absolute 
Being; and unless we postulate Absolute Being, or 
Being which persists, we cannot construct a theor}^ 



Comte's Religion of Humanity, 65 



of external phenomena." (R P. ch. vi, sec. 60, edi- 
tion of 1875.) 

'' Our knowledge of noumenal existence," says Her- 
bert Spencer, Prin. Psy., '^ has a certainty which our 
knowledge of phenomenal existence cannot ap- 
proach." (See Gazelles, 31.) 

August Comte, near the beginning of this century, 
got up a Religion of Humanity. George Lewes, his 
biographer, at the conclusion of his book says : '' In- 
disposed as I am to occupy any of the few remaining 
pages with criticism, I cannot forbear pointing out 
one immense omission. It makes religion purely 
and simply what has hitherto been designated morals. 
In thus limiting religion to the relations in which we 
stand towards one another, and towards humanity, 
Gomte leaves an important element aside ; for, even 
upon his own showing, humanity can only be the 
Supreme Being of our world— it cannot be the Su- 
preme being of the universe. To limit the universe 
.to our planet is to take a rustic, untraveled view of 
this great subject. If in this, our terrestrial sojourn, 
all we can distinctly know must be limited to the 
sphere of our planet ; nevertheless, even here, we, 
standing on this ball of earth and looking into the 
infinitude of which we know it to be but an atom 
must irresistibly feel and know that the humanity 
worshiped here cannot extend its dominion there. I 
say, therefore, that supposing our relations towards 
humanity may one day be systematized into a distinct 
cultus, and made a religion ; and supposing, further, 
our whole practical priesthood be limited to it, there 
must still remain for us, outlying this terrestrial 



66 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



sphere, the other sphere named infinite ; into which 
our eager and aspiring thoughts will wander, carry- 
ing with them, as ever, the obedient emotions of love 
and awe ; so that beside the religion of humanity, 
there must be a religion of the universe ; besides the 
conception of humanity we need the conception of a 
God, as the infinite of life ; from whom the universe 
proceeds, not in alien indifference, not in estranged 
subjection, but in the fullness of abounding power, as 
the incarnation of resistless activity/' 

And now, having proved by the facts of science, 
as we claim, that there is a supernatural Factor for 
all natural facts — that such supernatural Factor is 
not only a Power but a Being — not only a Being but 
a Person, we claim that such supernatural Power — 
Being — Person, is what we mean by the word God, 
or the Good One. 

A hole in the ocean fills up as fast as we make it. 
The stone that Sisyphus rolled up the hill, ever rolled 
back upon him. The incomprehensible ever increases 
with the increased comprehension of the incompre- 
hensible. As the incomprehensible becomes less the 
comprehensible becomes just so much greater. What 
we lose on one side we gain on the other. Has the 
atheist no other hope of annihilating God, than that 
of his boast of comprehending the incomprehensible? 
After comprehending all that we can, that which re- 
mains incomprehensible will be enough for our God. 
When we have apprehended that the solar system is 
held together by what is called gravitation, still we 
have not comprehended incomprehensible gravita- 
tion. Though we may comprehend a few facts, we 



The Finite Proves the Infinite. 67 



are utterly unable to comprehend a single cause. 
The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. The 
higher we rise, the wider is the view. As we ad- 
vance, the horizon before us recedes, and behind us 
it follows. The God of a savage is a Fetish ; the 
God of an Isaiah, or a Newton, is an Infinite Being. 
Hereafter we shall use, ad libitum , the word God, 
interchangeably with the word Power, as a verbal 
symbol of the supernatural. Let us now study its 
ways or methods of manifestation. 

From supernature, nature came ; 
The two are one, or both the same. 
For each is part of each the whole, 
As each is all of each the soul. 
Yet bird and man and jewelled sod 
Are God-made things that are not God. 
The star is not the leafy tree. 
Nor e'er can each the other be. 
Still earth and sky and central sun. 
Though all from God, in God are one. 
Each sound and form, and throbbing star, 
Of thought eternal, fragments are. 
The finite proves the Infinite, 
As night reveals the hidden light. 



LECTURE II 



METHODS OF SUPERNATURAL 

POWER. 

There is further proof of supernatural Power in 
the methods of its manifestation. What Power does 
proves what Power is ; even as the tree is known 
by its fruits. Power may manifest itself directly in 
things without life, and indirectly in things with hfe. 
Power may manifest itself uniformly as in what is 
called natural law, or multiformly, as in creation and 
generation. Power begins or creates thmgs, con- 
tinues or generates things, exchanges or correlates 
thino-s Sometimes the manifestation or way ot 
Powder is a method, sometimes it is a process and 
sometimes it is neither a method nor a process. 
Method is a plan or uniform habit of Power. As 
human Power is human Will, so we may conclude 
that superhuman Power is superhuman Will. Ihus 
we sav that a plan, a way, a habit, f Po^^ej is a 
plan, a way, a habit, of WiU-of one Will, whatever 
its methods. Will, human or superhuman, or subhu- 
man, is behind everything done in the universe. 
Where superhuman will stops, the human or subhu- 
man goes on. 



Method as Related to Miracles. 69 



I. Method as related to Miracles. There are, how- 
ever, special manifestations of Will Power that ex- 
hibit no method, such as miracles and providence. 
Miracles are sporadic acts of Power. After God's 
Will became known as matter, as cause, as force, as 
life, as providence, as law, as command, when it did 
some special thing, it was known as a miracle. A 
miracle is a fact. The first of everything was a mir- 
acle — the first atom, the first seed, the first insect. 
God is the worker of superhuman miracles as man is 
of human miracles. Nature is a miracle of superna- 
ture. 

A superhuman miracle is a fact, as the creation of 
the world, and all that is in it ; and a human miracle 
is a fact, as every act of the human Will. We say 
this, because every act is a miracle which is not under 
law, and no Will, human or superhuman, is under 
law. All Will is a law unto itself. Even superhu- 
man Will may speak to, but not coerce human Will, 
without destroying it. There is everywhere, and in 
everything, nothing but a miracle. Law is the mir- 
acle of miracles. The first drop of water produced 
was a miracle ; nor did it cease to be a miracle when 
the second was produced. 

All original and unrepeated acts are miracles ; all 
acts are original and unrepeated : therefore all acts 
are miracles. To repeat is to do the same thing ; 
but while similar things are done, the sajne thing can 
not be done twice. If to overcome law is a miracle, 
then any one may perform a miracle. When it is 
said that the universe is governed by law, of course 
it is meant that every atom, motion, and change of 



70 The Philosophy of the Supernahtral. 



every kind, is governed by law. Raise your hand 
and let it fall again to the side! So. When your 
hand, which hung at your side under the law of 
gravitation, was raised by your Will, was it raised 
by law or not? If it was raised by your Will m spite 
of law, your Will overcame the law, and is a miracle. 
If Will is not law, then it is stronger than law, and 
law does not govern the universe, for it does govern 
Will. That governs the universe, as we have said, 
which governs natural law. In the case before us, 
Will governs law, and therefore Will governs the 
^niverse-indeed. Will is law. If Will governs the 
universe, then there may be answers to prayer, special 
providences, and miracles, or anything and every- 
thing that Supreme Will may choose to do. 

But right here is a difficulty, not in the sufficiency 
of proof, but in the prejudice, or prepossession of the 
mind, to which it is submitted. Everything is doubt- 
ful to a doubting mind. All proof, whether of one 
kind or another, must be submitted to minds of pre- 
conceived notions of some sort-minds with a theistic 
or an atheistic bias-and these proofs are sufficient 
or insufficient, according to the bias. To an atheist, 
miracles are impossible, because he believes m no 
God to work them. In denying a God, he denies all 
a God can do. In other words, admitting a God, we 
can account for all things ; in denying a God, we can 
account for nothing. 

A supernatural Being can do supernatural things^ 
But to believe in a truth, we must be in sympathy with 
it • or at least not in antipathy to it. As before said, 
all is doubtful to a doubting mind. While preposses- 



No Miracles to God. yi 



sion is not proof, prejudice is not refutation. The 
mind without a God, e. g., denying a God, sees a 
universe without a God. But a mind having God 
within, e. g., in its faith, sees all things live, move, 
and have their being in God. Law, force, miracle 
and cause are different names for Will. As we 
widen the field of law, we multiply the number of 
miracles ; for miracles are not the exception to law, 
but law is the uniformity or system of miracles. Law, 
as the assumed invariability of will, is essentially and 
possibly, variable. Law-phenomena and miracle-phe- 
nomena, are both will-phenomena. A equals X plus 
Y. In other words, law and miracle, cause and 
force, make the sum of will ; hut to this will, there is 
no law and no miracle. One volition is as natural as 
another ; is as much a law as another ; and is as much 
a miracle as another. If asked what is a miracle, I 
ask, what is law ? Miracles are defined when law is 
explained ; when law is explained, miracles are 
proved. Miracles have hitherto been put upon the 
defensive ; but the time has come, for the more phi- 
losophical understanding of truth, to put law upon 
explanation. That is miracle in nature which is 
alone in nature. Each of the three Kingdoms, min- 
eral, animal, vegetable, is alone in the universe ; and 
each to every other Kingdom, is a Wonder — a Mir- 
acle. Law is the greatest miracle of God. To say 
that law is in the fact of like results from like condi- 
tions, is to state merely a fact, not to give a principle ; 
a result, not an effect ; a method, not a power; a se- 
quence, not a consequence. According to some, 
notion of the change of condition changes the law. 



72 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



Miracles may work by conditions as well as law. In 
law the conditions are repeated ; in miracles they are 
not repeated. Put the possibility of miracles in the 
change of conditions, if that will help the matter. 
Give to law its conditions, and to a miracle its con- 
ditions. Nothing is impossible with God. 

It is said " the elevation of a body in the air by the 
force of the arm, is a counteraction of the law of 
gravitation, but it is a counteraction of it by another 
law as natural as the law of gravity. The fact, 
therefore, is in conformity with the laws of nature. 
But if the same body is raised in the air without any 
application of known force, it is not a fact in con- 
formity with natural law." But when the arm raises 
a stone in the air, it is not the arm, but the will of the 
man that raises it ; and the will is a known force. Is 
not that will a netural law — all the natural law there 
is ? If so, may not the will of another raise it? If a 
will can raise it, what is it that pulls it down, but the 
will of some other ? If some other will pulls it down, 
may not the will of that other raise it up? When a 
man raises a stone in the air, his will overcomes the 
will of some invisible person that pulls it down. If 
the will of a finite person raises, may not the will of 
an infinite person pull down? God's will manifests 
itself twice as much in two ounces as it does in one. 

When science explains a law, theology will explain 
miracles. To account for law is to account for mir- 
acles. Law is essentially what miracles are, and 
nothing more ; and miracles are essentially what law 
is, and nothing less. The mistake has been in putting 
miracles upon proof, instead of putting law upon 



Method and Providence. y^ 



explanation. Miracles are not the exception to law ; 
but law is the uniformity of the miraculous Power. 
Law is the totality of miracles. But law and mir- 
acles are essentially the acts of one and the same 
Absolute Will. The will of God has general mani- 
festations called laws, special manifestations called 
miracles. But there was a miracle before there was 
law, just as the end of a line is before its prolonga- 
tion. The first thing in the universe was a miracle — 
a something done antecedent to all conditions — an 
act of Absolute Will. 

An uniform repetition of those miracles or acts of 
the will, are the laws of nature. But the special was 
before the general— indeed the general was only 
many specials in succession. Nature is but the visi- 
ble shapes of will — some special as in miracles, and 
some general and uniform, as in what are called laws. 
Both miracle and law mean nature, and nature means 
Absolute Will. Therefore, the explanation of miracle 
is identical with the explanation of law. Miracle 
does not suspend, violate or withdraw itself as an 
exception to the law-order of nature ; for law being 
the uniform willing, or volition of the Absolute Will, 
cannot suspend, violate, or except itself. One act of 
will does not suspend another act of will ; nor does 
one act of will violate another act of will ; nor is one 
act of will an exception to other acts of the same 
will. Will is will, and that is all there is about it. 
When law is accounted for essentially, then miracles 
are accounted for rationally. 

2. Method as related to providence. The universe is 
under the control of Will, direct or indirect, or under 



74 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

necessity. If all things are under the control of Will, 
nothing" is necessary, or if under necessity nothing is 
free, and nothing can be right or wrong. If conduct 
can be morally right or wrong. Supreme Will con- 
trols all, and providence is both possible and prob- 
able. So that the question is not, can there be a 
providence? but, as Supreme Will controls all, the 
question is, what is not a providence? Here too we 
see the possibility of answer to prayer. If unlimited 
Power is unlimited Will, prayer may be answered, 
and no law broken ; for law is will, as we now pro- 
ceed to show. 

3. Method as related to Law. In what is called 
natural law, supernatural Will Power manifests uni- 
formity rather than method. Law is Will ; Will is 
one as the sun, law many as the rays. As every ray 
is all sun, so every law is all Will. In other words, 
as the sun and its rays, so is Will and laws. Natural 
law is supernatural Will, uniform as we think law to 
be. Will is not only Power — personal power — but 
Will is law-power. 

The law of human, individual and collective, 
conduct is superhuman Will, stereotyped in the inev- 
itable state of society. That is natural law which is 
best under natural circumstances. Circumstances 
over which we do not have control reveal the law 
of conduct over which we do have control. 

If the universe is governed by law, it is governed 
by Will ; for, as said before, if Will is not law, then 
the motion of my hand which is governed by my 
Will, is not governed by law, and so the whole uni- 
verse, of which my hand is a part, is not governed by 



Law is Will. 75 



law. So far as law is uniform, it is the uniformity of 
Will. Supreme Will prescribes its own supreme 
conditions, supreme operations, and supreme aims. 
Law is Will, uniform as we see it. Natural law, as 
contrasted with civil law, is supernatural Will, uni- 
form in natural order. 

But law creates nothing, therefore if law is only a 
fact, it governs nothing ; for fact belongs to method 
and not to power ; and while power governs every- 
thing, method governs nothing. What is method ? 
Method is a way of power, and may be uniform or 
multiform. As in initial creation of the inorganic, in 
progressive creation called evolution, and in special 
creation called miracles, omnipresent Will observes 
a self-prescribed method of special diversity in a 
general system of uniformity, doing different, origi- 
nal, creative things, with or without conditions ; so 
in Law, the same omnipresent Will observes a self- 
prescribed method of general uniformity in special 
diversity; doing, uniform things under uniform con- 
ditions, governing, under a method of uniformity, a 
universe it had created by its power, under a method 
of diversity. The scientific notion of law is in its ap- 
parent unilormity. 1 say its apparent uniformity, be- 
cause, as Prof. Jevons says, " Law is not inconsist- 
ent with extreme diversity." 

According to Mill, " the expression ' law of nature,' 
means nothing but the uniformities which exist among 
natural phenomena." 

The essence of law is in the will behind the uni- 
formity. Even Mr. Mill admits that " the expression 
Maw of nature,' is generally used by scientific men 



76 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



as a sort of tacit reference to the original sense of the 
word law, the expression of the will of a superior ; 
the superior, in this instance, being the Ruler of the 
Universe." If law is will, then uniformity of law 
is but a method or uniformity of will. Laws are as 
uniform as the purpose of the law-giver. The pur- 
poses of law, and the purposes of even miracles, are 
purposes of one and the same will ; and therefore, as 
actions of the will, there can be nothing in law so 
fixed that a miracle would conflict with it, One voli- 
tion of the will cannot conflict with another volition 
of the same will. Difference is not conflict. 

It has been said that force cannot exist apart from 
matter; and that matter exists only in connection 
with force. As to saying that matter exists only in 
connection with force, matter becomes less and less 
material as you reach the immaterial force with which 
it is instinct. The constant tendency of science is to 
idealize or immaterialize matter. Omnipresent force 
is omnipresent will. Will is manifested as gravitation, 
and is gravitation ; it is manifested as chemical affin- 
ity, and is chemical afihnity ; it is manifested in the in- 
terchange of all the energies of nature, and is those 
energies. God's will as heat becomes God's will as 
electricity ; and God's will as electricity becomes 
God's will as heat, and God is all in all. God's will is 
uniform in God's uniform purpose. Science studies 
this uniformity in matter, and calls it law, whereas it 
is only a method. God is omnipresent as will, as force, 
as providence. Usual acts of will are called laws ; 
unusual acts are called miracles. But to Him, the 
volitions of his will are not known as usual or unusu- 



Creation Never Stops. 77 



al ; He neither looks forward nor backward ; all is one 
eternal now. To Him all present acts or phenomena 
are alike creative. As there is no past time to God, 
there is no past creation to Him. Creation is per- 
petual. To continue is to create — continuation is only 
prolonged creation. A growing tree is a growing 
creation ; every second, is a new creation. That which 
seems to come to us by the uniformity of law, is an 
instantaneous creation as God's will. He knows no 
law or creation apart from His w^ill. 

As we have said, God created some things without 
individual wills, and some things with individual 
wills. To things without wills of their own, as min- 
erals and vegetables. He addressed no command, as 
they had neither intelligence nor power to obey or 
disobey them. He imposed upon them, consequently, 
no moral accountability, but He, Himself, dwelt in 
them as their will. What we call the mechanical 
forces of gravitation, heat, electricity, and the forces 
of chemical affinity, and the vital force of germination 
and growth, are but names we give to God at work. 
They are not so much manifestations of His will, as 
they are His will itself. Where uniformity is the 
uniformity of Absolute Will— uniformity is a fact or 
method, but not an essence. 

'' Theological philosophy supposes everything to be 
governed by will, and that phenomena are, therefore, 
variable, at least virtually. The positive philosophy, 
on the contrary, conceive them to be subject to inva- 
riable laws, which permit us to predict with absolute 
precision." Between these tw^o accounts of things, 
there is said to be an utter incompatibility. Suppose 



y^ The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

we admit the existence of these uniform laws, whose 
operations we may predict with absolute precision, so 
far as they portend to matter. Does that forbid them 
to be will — uniform will ? May not this uniformity 
be self-prescribed by will? Uniformity is not the 
essence of law, but its method. Positive philosophy 
does not investigate that essence. It cannot deny 
that uniform laws may be uniform will. It says that 
it knows not what it is that is uniform ; only that 
something is uniform ; whether it is will, or whatever 
it ma}^ be. Positive philosophy confines its researches 
to the fact, and does not investigate the caiise of uni- 
formity. Facts belong to methods, not powers. But 
may not will in nature choose to be uniform (in nature, 
at least) to us? There are two facts in nature — unin- 
telligent, unconscious, impersonal matter, and intelli- 
gent, conscious, personal being. Science is impa- 
tient that religion should teach that nature rests upon 
supernature— the objective upon the subjective — im- 
personal facts upon a personal Factor. 

Nature is multiformity in uniformity. Distance 
blends the uneven into the even, the variable into the 
invariable ; and that which is invariable to us, is 
variable to Him, and the reverse. Science must 
study what it calls the variable, as in the wills of all 
animal natures, or confess its impotence as a knowl- 
edge of the uppermost lines of nature. When we 
pass from matter to human conduct, human will is 
the most obtrusive of all facts in human nature. If 
supernatural will be too variable to be studied by 
science, so, a fortiori, must be the will of all below 
the supernatural. Is man without law because he 



Will as Law is Invariable. 79 



has a will? Will is variable or invariable, as it 
chooses to be. As said before, supreme will is inva- 
riable, when it has an invariable purpose ; though 
with the Almighty, there '' is no variableness, neither 
shadow of turning." '' I am the Lord, I change not; 
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Sci- 
ence cannot prove that variableness is more a char- 
acteristic of will than invariableness. It is claimed 
that the laws of nature may be scientifically ob- 
served and ascertained because of their invariability ; 
but that does not prove that they are not acts of will, 
unless it can be proved that acts of will are invariably 
variable, which is absurd. The power to be variable 
is one thing, and the exercise of it another. The 
existence of will cannot be denied. If nature can be 
invariable without intelligent will, as some contend, 
it is likely to be more variable with the intelligent 
will, for which is here contended ? The simple dif- 
ference is this ; some see that what they call the laws 
of nature are invariable, but neither know nor inquire 
why they are so. Others see the laws of nature to 
be equally invariable, and believe them to be the 
energies of the possibly variable will of God. To 
these they have a personal origin ; to those others an 
impersonal one. Some study and trust them as the 
invariable facts of an impersonal nature ; others study 
and reverence them as the invariable decisions of a 
Personal God. They attribute them to a person, be- 
cause they are acts like those of a person. They are 
as invariable to theology, as they are to science. 
What is called unchangeable nature, is but unchanged 
will. But let us bear in mind, that unchangeable 



8o The Philosophy of the SupernaturaL 



will need not always do the same thing. An un- 
changeable will may do different and progressive 
things, as in all evolution. It may do similar things, 
under what we may call laws, and it may do many dis- 
similar things we may call miracles. But as acts of 
will, each is independent, and in no sense violative of 
other acts of will. The directing and effective energy 
of the universe, which is a great fact in God, is inces- 
santly willing different things. If the theory of evolu- 
tion be valid as a process or method of God's will, then, of 
course, that will is invariably variable. The invariable 
or uniform is stationary ; the variable is the progres- 
sive. The incessant development of the homogene- 
ous into the heterogeneous, of species into varieties, 
has a persistent method of will ever varying its work. 
No miracle is more a departure from uniformity than 
the ever changing variations of species and indi- 
viduals. These are, in fact, miracles, if law is uni- 
form. In a word, evolution is a process of miracles. In 
evolution, all is instability, change, creative, and mi- 
raculous. If law is a method of stability and not in 
the power of will, then there is no law, if evolution 
be true ; for, as seen in inorganic evolution, all is in- 
stability, and per saltum. Development is variation. 
In the law theory, the conditions and results are 
ever alike ; in the evolution theory, conditions and 
results are ever unlike. In law, nature never extends, 
but always repeats; in evolution, nature never re- 
peats, but always progresses. One theory, as an 
exclusive theory, contradicts the other. If one is 
exclusively true, the other must be false. It is alone 
in the absolute will of an Absolute Being, that the 



Fixed Law is Unfixed Will. 8i 



mystery and conflict of causation, law, evolution, 
miracle and providence, can be accounted for and 
harmonized, as diverse methods of one manifesting 
Power. With a divine Will as the unity of all things, 
the evolution system may be true as a will-method of 
progressive instability, and the law-system may be 
true as a will-method of conservative stability. Abso- 
lute Will can do either, both, or neither. Law is a 
Will-power working to a plan, with a method of 
-diversity ; miracle is Will-power working specially 
to a purpose without a method of any kind. Law is 
nothing but a method, and governs nothing ; and not 
the power behind all methods, governing everything. 
Why is it that like conditions produce like results ? 
Materialism does not explain. 

We have said that originating power is one, and its 
methods are two, both multiform and uniform. They 
are also both free and fixed. Power is its own meas- 
ure of freedom. The method of power is free be- 
cause the power is free to produce dissimilar things, 
such as minerals, vegetables and animals. It is also 
fixed in the instrumentalities by which it produces 
similar things, such as moulds for similar bullets as 
before shown, and dies for similar coin. But the 
instrument is always in the hand of the instrument 
maker. Nature never gets away from supernature, 
but is the miracle of the supernatural. Supernature 
and nature are two realities of One Being — I do not 
say of one Person. There never was a bullet with- 
out a mould — never a coin without a coiner. The 
fons et origo of moulds and bullets, and of die and 

coin, is the conception of the One Mind, omnipresent 
6 



82 The Philosophy of the SupernaturaL 



in the universe. The originating thought is the in- 
trinsic energy continuing down all lines of deriva- 
tion, but one bullet is not derived from another bullet. 
In the concavity of the mould it shaped the convexity 
of each bullet. Pieces of coin correspond, not to each 
other, but to their common die ; and the die trans- 
mits, without repetition, to each, the one original 
thought of its maker. Two pieces of coin from the 
same die are not two thoughts, but are two facts of 
the one thought fixed in the die. The same mould 
may repeat the form and multiply bullets, but never 
repeat the same bullet. Even the act of moulding 
is never the same act, for the bullet is never the 
same. Every bullet is an original product of the one 
common mould ; a creation, not an inheritance, or a 

derivation. 

With the second drop of water was revealed a men- 
tal method of creative repetitions. Original power 
created the first drop, and original power created the 
second, similar drop. Their similarity was but the 
act of the originating mind, imitating its own work. 
This imitativeness may be free, or it may be fixed. 
The individual pieces of similar coin come from a 
method of repetition fixed in the die. This die re- 
peats coin as the like conditions repeat like results. 

As an illustration of the consistency of law and 
miracle in Will, suppose an invisible expert were to 
roll in succession, a million or more marbles, on a 
certain line, between certain hours of the day ; all who 
observe it would conclude that it is a fact, and that 
in the fact is a law, that round pieces of stone, between 
certain hours of the day, would roll successively on a 



Uniformity a Method of Power. '^'i) 

certain line. There would be, to the observer, a cer- 
tain uniformity, and the condition of certain hours, 
would invariably attend the phenomena. But how 
would the facts be to the expert himself? To him, 
each marble would roll as impelled and directed by a 
distinct act of his will. There would be no uniformity 
to him, for each act would be original and independ- 
ent of every other act, and uniformity can be predi- 
cated only of repeated and dependent acts. 

To God there is neither uniformit}^ nor necessity ; 
and even to the observer, uniformity is only a method 
not a power. But suppose that this expert, upon the 
asking, and apparently without intermitting his usual 
roll of marbles along the given line, should throw a 
marble now and then, to a boy in some window above 
him ? Such an act would be neither a violation of, 
nor a departure from, nor an exception to, the million 
of marbles rolled as described. Each act of throwing 
the occasional marble to the boy, would be original 
and independent, and as natural as any and all the 
other acts of his will ; for one act of will is as natural 
as another. With God there is 710 distinction between 
natural and supernatural ; and miracle is as natural 
as law. He does not know one act of His will as 
miracle, and other acts as laws. In the will of God 
there is enough uniformity of the method of law, and 
enough variation for the theory of evolution. If it be 
insisted that will is too variable for law, what must be 
said as to the variability of that uniformity called evo- 
lution? Variation is essential to evolution. All 
change from genus into species, and of species into 
individuals, is just so far a departure from uniformity. 



84 The Philosophy of the Super7iatural, 



and so form the jurisdiction of what is called law. 
God's will, as said before, in inorganic things is 
known as chemical affinity and gravitation ; in organic 
matter. His will is known as life; in lower animals, 
His will is known as instinct ; but to a man, God ad- 
dresses his will as command or moral law, and looks 
to conduct. It is the will of God that some o[ His 
creatures should have wills of their own. Some of 
these subordinate wills, as in the case of brutes, were 
merely self-preserving wills, and morally irresponsible; 
and, as to them. He included His will in their instincts. 
As to man, it was God's will that man should have 
the will of reflective intelligence of His own, and He 
expressed His will to the will of man, in commands. 
In this, man became a responsible and moral being. 
If our wills were not given to us by some other will, 
then, contrary to the doctrine that like begets like, 
and that nature makes no leaps, we should get our 
wills from that which had no wills to give. We might 
as well expect to see a horse born from a fish. We 
see, on the contrary, will derived from will, all around 
us, 'in the phenomena of heredity. As Shakespeare 
puts the doctrine, '' there's a Divinity that shapes our 
ends, rough hew them how we will." To a certam 
extent, we go where we will on this globe ; and yet, 
some superior will takes the globe, with all on it, where 
we do not will to go. Just as in the case of one carry- 
ing a vase of fish : each fish swims around according 
to its own individual will ; but the will of another 
carries the vase and the fish in spite of its will, where 
that other will pleases. The two orders of will con 
flict, but each is free. 



Law a Method of Will. 85 

We have described the method, and have been 
silent as to the power of law. The power to walk is 
one thing, and the method or way of walking, as fast 
or slow, constantly or occasionally, uniformly or di- 
versely, is another thing. Now, like results from 
like conditions, is a method of uniformity ; but there 
must be some power to make the results uniformly 
follow like conditions. 

Blackstone says : " As man depends absolutely on 
his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he 
should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. 
This will of his Maker is called the law of nature." 
God's will pervades the universe and energizes mat- 
ter. The universe is both the fact, and a method of 
God's will — its materialization. So far as we can 
form an opinion on this subject, will is the centre of 
power. Will creates will. The Creator wills that 
some of His creatures shall have will of their own. 
As said before, when Will combines matter, moves 
matter, or vitalizes matter, it is called Force. 

In other words. Will may be creative in cause, 
invariable in law, creatively variable in evolution, 
and special in miracle ; but, if evolution and law, as 
w^ell as miracle, be not exponents of Will, and either 
be exclusively true, the other two are false. If the 
old notion of the absolute inflexibility of law be true, 
there can be no progress of evolution and no isolated 
miracle ; or, if either of these be true, as a power or 
as method, there can be no inflexibility of law. All 
may be true as the acts of absolute Will ; for the 
absolute Will of an Absolute Being may do things 
apparently contradictory to finite intelligence, but 



86 The Philosophy of the SttpernaturaL 



perfectly consistent to infinite intelligence. In tracing 
all phenomena back to Will, we reach a sufficient 
reason, accounting for everything ; but in setting up 
any one atheistical system as exclusive, the facts of 
the universe become too conflicting, and we cannot 
account satisfactorily for anything. 

To say that this universe, including all substance, 
systems of phenomena, force, motion, feelings, and 
results, is governed by law, is to say that all these 
are governed by Will ; for Will is law. For illustra- 
tion : as the idea of the universe covers all motions, 
whatever is moved, is moved by law : my hand is 
moved ; therefore my hand is moved by law. Again, 
whatever moves my hand is law : my Will moves my 
hand ; therefore my will is law. Now, if the law- 
power which moves my hand is human Will, why is 
not the law-power which moves the stars, super- 
human Will? Supreme Will is supreme law. This 
Will is one as the sun ; law many as the rays ; as 
every ray is all sun, so every law is all Will. If ^vill 
is law-power, law-power can have no fixed condi- 
tions ; for will can have none. But if the will-power 
which moves my hand is not law-power, then the 
universe is not governed by law ; for the motion of 
my hand, governed by my will, is not so governed. 
As just said, if any law-power is will-power, why is 
not all law will? And e converso, if any will is law, 
why is not all will law within its sphere ? 

But, if the universe is governed by law, the gov- 
ernment is personal, not impersonal ; for government 
is a personal function, and law implies a personal 
law-giver. 



Instinct is Fixed Intelligence. 87 

In matter^ that part of the universe with no in- 
trinsic will traceable by us, there is extrinsic per- 
sonal Will-power, called gravitation ; and there is the 
method in which all objects near the surface of the 
earth, for instance, are drawn towards its centre, with 
a force, directly as to mass and inversely as to the 
square of the distance. In the government of this 
matter-part of the universe there is an inevitable 
must — it cannot do otherwise than it does. 

In mind, that part of the universe where there are 
intelligent things called brutes and intelligent per- 
sons called men, the case is different. They have 
intrinsic wills subject to a supreme extrinsic Will. 
Law with the brutes is the extrinsic Will of their 
Maker, intrinsic in them as instinct. God fixes the 
intelligence of the bee who builds its cells in exactest 
hexagons, by making the eyes of the bees in a group 
of hexagons. The lines of the eyes give the lines of 
the cells. This instinct or fixed intelligence is their 
law. As to man, his Maker's superhuman intelli- 
g-ence appeals to man's human intelligence by com- 
mands, motives, prophecies, and by providential 
events. Here the idea is the moral shoidd, not the 
physical must, as in matter. If we describe law as a 
method of like results from like conditions, and yet 
remain silent as to the power or cause by which like 
as from like we might as well speak of the engine 
and be silent as to the motive power b}^ which the 
engine is operative : What is the power on the other 
side of phenomena, by which phenomena are phe- 
nomena ? 

We are confidently told that law is on this side of 



SS The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



phenomena, not on the other. But while the method 
of law is on this side, \h^ power of law is on the other. 
The shadow on this side of the earth is cast by sun- 
light on the other. If there be no noumenon, there 
can be no phenomenon. But in refining law down to 
a method, we intensify the inquiry into the power 
behind the method. Turn which way we will, — 
doubt, deny, profane the Supernatural— omnipresent 
omnipotence envelopes and arrests us. We cannot 
have a method of facts without a power to realize the 
method. x\ll the phantoms of science fall back into- 
the Eternal Being. 

Necessity is inconsistent with the government of 
law. We are told that the universe is governed by 
law, but if evervthing is necessary, then nothing can 
be governed ; and, if everything is governed, then 
nothing is necessary. If it is meant that everything 
is necessary, and nothing is a creation, then, I ask, is- 
the intelligence which we predicate as the necessity of 
everything, a necessary intelligence? Do we neces- 
sarily know that everything is necessary ? If we nec- 
essarily know this, why do not all necessarily know 
the same thing? Are the religious doubts of one 
necessary, and is the religious belief of another nec- 
essary ? In a word, do all who hate, necessarily hate ; 
and do all who love, necessarily love? Are all dis- 
honest people necessarily dishonest, and all honest 
people necessarily honest ? If all the evil conduct of 
men is necessary, and has no creator in the man him- 
self, why hold him responsible? Was it necessary 
for the Egyptians to enslave the Israelites? or for the 
Jews to have polygamy? Where does necessity end 



There is no Necessity. 89 

and where creation, or liberty and responsibility, be- 
gin ? If that which necessarily exists be necessarily 
unintelligent, then it is necessarily ignorant and 
ought to be silent. 

But necessity is only a method of self-prescribed 
uniformity of Will. Prof. Huxley says, " If there be 
a physical necessity, it is that a stone unsupported 
must fall to the ground. But what is really all we 
know about this phenomena? Simply that in all 
human experience, stones have fallen to the ground 
under these conditions ; that we have not the smallest 
reason for believing that any stone so circumstanced 
will not fall to the ground ; and that we have, on the 
contrary, every reason to believe that it will so fall. 
It is very convenient to indicate that all the condi- 
tions of belief have been fulfilled in this case, by call- 
ing the statement that unsupported stones will fall to 
the ground, a ' law of nature.' But when, as com- 
monly happens, we change will into must, we intro- 
duce an idea of necessity, which most assuredly does 
not lie in the observed facts, and that have no war- 
ranty that I can discover elsewhere. For my part, 
I utterly repudiate and anathematize the intruder. 
Fact I know and law I know, but what is this neces- 
sity ^2.^0, an empty shadow of my own mind's throw- 
ing?" Mr. John Stuart Mill's idea of necessity is 
" That word in its other acceptations involves much 
more than mere uniformity of sequence ; it implies 
irresistibleness. Applied to the will, it only reasons 
that the given cause will be followed by the effect 
subject to all possibilities of counter action by other 
causes ; but in common use it stands for the opera- 



90 The Philosophy of the Stcpernatural. 



tion of those causes exclusively which are supposed 
too powerful to be counteracted at all. * * * Any 
given effect is only necessary provided that the 
causes tending to produce it are not controll." 
{" Logic " Bk. vi., ch. 2., § 3.) 

Admit that ill consequences nniformily follow ac- 
tions classed as evil, because of those consequences. 
Is that uniformity preventable or not preventable? 
If preventable, the idea of uniformity does not ex- 
clude remedial or interrupting factors. In other 
words, causes called evil may be naturally or super- 
naturally resisted ; as in the case of one natural law 
preventing the operation of another natural law. If 
nothing can prevent certain consequences from fol- 
lowing certain actions, there must be some irresisti- 
ble power to make it certain ; and this brings us back 
to the remark, that power measures necessity, and 
the necessity of results is in the power to necessitate 
results. There is more necessity for power in neces- 
sity than in all else. The difference between a sys- 
tem of necessity in nature, and of an economy of 
grace, is that in an economy of grace the great 
Ruler publishes laws that are holy, just and good, 
and prescribes the consequences of persistent dis- 
obedience. But he ever holds the conduct and 
the consequences, as he does all else, in his all-wise 
control. He is merciful and forgiving, where a God 
might well claim to be merciful. Knowing that it is 
a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, 
we are sure that no mercy included in the religious 
system of conduct and consequences ever encour- 
aged wrong doing. That is, which we observe to be ; 



God is not under Necessity. 91 



but there is no necessity that it should be as it is. 
There is necessarily no necessity in anything. All is 
as God wills it; and will to be will, must not be 
under any necessity. There is no 7iecessity above God, 
compelling Him to make anything necessary below him. 
That which is called necessity to men is no necessity 
to God. 

But whatever law may be essentially, and to us, it 
is no law to the lawgiver. He makes no law for 
Himself ; and His will being law itself, is bound by 
no law. Supreme law cannot bind Supreme law. 
As he that makes anything must himself exist before 
the thing which he makes, so must the lawgiver exist 
before the law is given. Nothing can bind the 
Binder. Nothing can be more omnipotent than 
omnipotence. That which is a rule to man is will, 
but it is not a rule to God. Below Him all is as He 
pleases, whether it be uniform or not uniform, con- 
nected or disconnected ; whether we call it law or 
miracle. 

Nature is the code of the supernatural. Supernat- 
ural Power behind the stars, and system of stars, is, 
alike, the moral authority of social as of material 
systems, and of confederate systems. As law is like 
a royal coin, precious and current, whether expressed 
in material symbols or prescribed in rules of human 
conduct, so the Will manifesting the material and 
moral systems is one and the same. The unity of 
law is the unity of Will. To understand the highest 
generalizations of either the material or moral sys- 
tem of law, we must understand the highest general- 
izations of both ; exactly as we understand one we 



92 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



shall understand the other. Therefore, with our eyes 
fixed upon the uniform manifestations of will in the 
laws of matter, as admitted in recent thought, let us 
study in the revelations of the material and visible, 
the nature of will in the moral and the invisible. 
Leaving theories to shape themselves, let us go 
directly to the facts of the universe. If nature is 
one the evolution of the supernatural will as law 
must be one ; and what is found authoritative in the 
material, will not be contradicted in the moral. As 
the radii of a circle have the same centre, and as the 
two equal angles at the base of an isosceles triangle 
have the same vertex, so we may expect the laws of 
matter and morality to focalize in the same will, and 
manifest their presence by the same operative method. 
If the laws of matter multiply effects and segregate 
phenomena, so the laws of morality multiply results. 
As harmony is the result of compulsory obedience in 
matter, so it is of voluntary obedience in morality. 
The evolutionary laws of integration, environment, 
propagation, growth and correlation are the same in 
both. Supernatural unity of material and moral law 
is seen in the unity of essence, the unity of sanctions 
and the unity of manifestations. 

Blackstone says that '* law depends not upon our 
approbations, but upon the makers iviliy If Black- 
stone be correct, law is neither a cause nor an effect, 
but, as a volition, is sui generis. Statute law is the 
will of the legislature. International law is the 
will of the nations. The law for the servant is 
the will of the Qiaster. In ultimate generalization, 
we may say that all law is will. It is in this sense of 



Prohibitions Negatively Imply Laws. 93 



will, that we everywheiie use the word law. The 
supreme will is the supreme law. Laws, as forces of 
will, may be distinct as the waves, but they are in 
essence one, as the sea. Law is the universal nature 
of things, relations, and actions. It is not made, but 
it exists. There is as much law at one time as an- 
other. There was no more or other law at the time 
of Justinian than at the time of the XII Tables. 
There were more prohibitions, but not more law ; 
for universal reason neither increases nor diminishes. 
When man is commanded not to steal, no new law is 
made. Honesty is the law— dishonesty its violation. 
Law is in doing- or being ; not in not doing or not 
being. Prohibitions may indicate or reveal law, but 
they are not laws. They only forbid the breaking of 
law. Prohibition implies the law. As society grows 
older, it gains, through religion or mere human rea- 
son, what the law of universal reason is, and declares 
prohibitions against its violation. So the enlighten- 
ment of the world enables it to discover what the 
nature of things requires or necessitates, and also to 
prohibit its disregard. The affirmation of law implies 
a prohibition of its violation, and the prohibition of 
an act implies the law threatened to be broken. 
Thou shalt not steal implies the right of property 
and possession of a thing. The correlative of 
every affirmation of law is the negation of its vio- 
lation, and the reverse. As the convex side of every 
curved line has, on the obverse, a side of correlative 
concavity, so every law has a correlative warning or 
prohibition not to violate it. The law of gravitation 
is in the falling tower, not in the notice to keep from 



94 The Philosophy of the Sttper natural. 



under it. Law is in the ownership of land, not in the 
posted warnings not to trespass on it. Law is exec- 
utory, not prohibitory. The multiplicity of prohibi- 
tions do not multiply laws: They at most suggest 
what the law is whose violation is forbidden. 

For this reason, the growth of codes, as that of 
Justinian, does not indicate the growth of law, but 
the growth of its violations to be prevented. So the 
maximum of law, as it is called, is the maximum of 
its violation. The multiplicity of rules of morality 
indicates a multiplicity of immoral customs. Rules 
of morality multiply as principles of morality are 
broken. We must distinguish between legal rules 
which are logic, and the principle of legal principles 
which is natural or universal reason. The law of 
right conduct of men is the same as the law of grav- 
itation of matter; for both are will. Gravitation 
holds matter to centres and systems of centres, pro- 
ducing the harmony of circular motion ; so the laws 
of moral conduct hold men, races, and nations to 
social centres and systems of centres, producing 
domestic, municipal, and international order and 

harmony. 

Look at the consequences of the disobedience of mat- 
ter. " If," says Hooker, '' nature should intermit her 
course, and leave altogether, though it were but for 
awhile, the observation of her own laws ; if those 
principal and mother elements of the world, whereof 
all things in this lower world are made, should lose 
the qualities which now they have; if the frame of 
that heavenly arch erected over our heads should 
loosen and dissolve itself ; if celestial spheres should 



Consequences of Dzsodedzence. 95 



forget their wonted motions, and by irregular volu- 
bility turn themselves any way as it might happen ; 
if the prince of the lights of heaven, which as a giant 
doth run his universal course, should, as it were, 
through a languishing faintness, begin to stand and 
rest himself ; if the moon should wander from her 
beaten way, the times and seasons of the year blend 
themselves by disordered and confused mixtures, and 
the winds breathe out their last gasp, the clouds 
yield no rain, the earth be defeated of heavenly in- 
fluence, the fruits of the earth pine away, as children 
at the withered breast of their mother, no longer able 
to yield them relief, what would become of man 
himself, whom these things now do all serve? See 
we not plainly that obedience of creatures unto the 
law of nature is the stay of the whole world?" 

The consequences of disobedience are not different 
in morality, but infinitely more dreadful. If in moral 
life every man should disregard every right of his 
fellow-man ; and if every husband and wife should 
violate every law of their relation, and every parent 
and child be unnatural to each other ; if every master 
should oppress and not pay the wages of the servant, 
and every servant disobey and rob his master; if 
every government should seek to crush its citizens, 
and all the citizens constantly war upon the govern- 
ment; if every man were to treat every contract as 
a baseless promise; if no man had an admitted right 
to live, to own lands and chattels— in a word, if there 
were no obedience, and every man were a law unto 
himself, would not social chaos and reconstruction 
come as certainly from disobedience in morality, as 



96 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



chaos and reconstruction would come from disobe- 
dience in matter? The same will is behind all. The 
threads of all laws are gathered into the same hand. 
Nature rejoices in such principal things as the ocean 
and the sun, where the many look to the one. Cen- 
tripetalism is the law for both atoms and men. 

The uniformity of effects shows unity of cause. 
The uniformity of phenomena is the exponent of the 
unity of law. This unity is in the analogy that moral 
laws are as self-assertive as those we call inorganic 
or material, and can no more be broken with im- 
punity than they ; for, we repeat, they both are the 
expression of one will. All wrong is indehble ; and, 
in a system of mere material law, disobedience is 
neither forgotten nor forgiven ; for there can be no 
disobedience as such. But moral responsibibty tran- 
scends knowledge. Its limitations wander through 
a moral economy of the ages, untraceable to finite 
intellio-ence. A cause is an immortal thing. A wrong- 
is an e\er parturient womb, like that of Milton's hag 
at the gates of hell, from which a life-repeating 
progeny comes, to curse and die. A felony is social 
suicide. Every act has its equivalence in either com- 
pensations for suffering virtue and acts of kmdness, 
in reparations for moral injuries, or retributions for 
injustice. But we have no telescope with which to 
look on to the hidden end. Be sure your wrong- 
doing will find you out and drive you into a corner 
- 'Tis the eternal law that where guilt is, sorrow shall 

answer it." 

Nature neither sleeps nor dies ; for supernature 
never sleeps or dies. For every injury she returns a 



Unity of SupernatMral Will. 97 



blow. As you twist the twig, so must run the sap of 
the tree. AH beginnings are solemn, but bad ones 
'* cast their shadows before." Punishment may seem 
to be postponed ; but, as in the constitution of man, 
matter and morality are each the avenging Nemesis 
of the wrongs of the other -punishment is sure to 
come. 

As to the special ground of essential right, it is 
eternally omnipresent, and let us see what method, 
if any, material science furnishes to ascertain the 
fact of law. Can we use, in reasoning about 
morals, the principles used in reasoning about 
matter; and, by induction in morals as well as in 
matter, discover any one principle upon which all 
material and moral phenomena rest? Does not the 
universality of law necessitate the unity of law ? If 
it can be seen that a tree and a system of morals are 
made upon the same principles, we can well believe 
in a one Law-giver, and in the unity of His will as 
laws. Similarity will be lost in identity, and parallels 
will meet in infinity. This identity of principle of 
all phenomena, material and moral, is seen in univer- 
sal organizations, universal development, universal 
individualization. This is evolution, and pertains to 
the method, not the cause of manifestations. The 
cause lies out of sight. Herbert Spencer calls it 
*' The Unknowable." We can know what law is, but 
not why. 

The supernatural unity of will in law is seen in the 

unity of all evolution. The necessities for abstract 

unity of law compel the venture upon most abstract 

generalizations. But we shall be more than repaid 

7 



98 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



for such dry investigations and discussions if we find 
the unity we seek. Unity is an essential quality. 
Circumferences must have centres. From the one 
all lines converge, and from the other all lines di- 
verge. There can be no diversity without a correl- 
ativ'e unity. Plato says that all unity tends to plu- 
rality, and all plurality ends in unity. As the 
engineer must know the unity of his machine, as 
well as the diversity of the several parts, in order to 
manage its tremendous power, so the lawyer must 
know law in the unity of its principles, as well as the 
plurality of its rules, in order to know his ground. ^ 

Laws are not made, but they appear as there is 
need. Like the '' ever-becoming " of Heraclitus, law 
is. '' Mankind's notions of right are generally found- 
ed upon prescription."^ '' Roman law grew out of 
the varied experience and the practiced forethought 
oi a great people, and which provided naturally and 
easily for the numberless questions of human life and 
intercourse."' " The study of a great variety of na- 
tions shows that none ot the conditions essential to 
the existence of men in a social order can be said to 
have been at any time artificially made for them by 
any prophet or law-giver. The utmost that legisla- 
tors can effect is to modify, to improve, to purify ex- 
isting systems and institutions. To none of them, 
that we know of in history, was it given to find a void 
which he could fill with a theory of his own inven- 
tion. Laws are not made, but grow. Even now, in 
our time of restless and over-proHfic parHamentary 



{a) Hallam's Mid. Ages, 337- ^^) Church's Mid. Ages, 53- 



EvohUion does not Pertain to Origin. 99 



law-making, new laws mark only the endeavors of 
legislators to find the forms in which the general 
feeling of justice is to be expressed, or in which new 
wants, felt by the community, are to be satisfied under 
public authority."^ And in order not to conflict or 
fail, they must come from one will. Law, to be law, 
is infallibly wise. 

The evolution of matter, the evolution of morals, 
or rather the evolution of the knowledge of morals, 
or law, and the evolution of character, show that the 
laws of all phenomena, both material and social, are 
the same. Though evolution, as a theory, received 
the assent, qualified or unqualified, of many, if not a 
majority, of the thoughtful minds of the age ; yet, 
before we can use it in the study of ethics or char- 
acter, we must ascertain more definitely what it 
means. 

The word evolution expresses for science what 
the word progress formerly did for society. Both 
words cover the idea of traceable derivation or 
development, not of causation. To evolve is not to 
cause. As a philosophy of the beginning of things, 
like other schemes, evolution is useless. In the lan- 
guage of Herbert Spencer, its great teacher: *' Evo- 
lution, under its simplest and most general aspect, is 
the integration of matter, and the concomitant dissipa- 
tion of motion." What is meant by '' integration of 
matter," and how does that principle in material 
phenomena help us to understand the nature of ethi- 
cal principles? As nature can not obey conttadic- 



{d) Ihne's Early Rome, ch. IV. 



lOO The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



tory commands, the unity of law is a necessity. 
Accordingly we see all phenomena have the same 
method of manifestation from the many to the few, 
from the incoherent to the coherent, and from the 
homogeneous to the heterogeneous. 

In the integration of matter the law is either that 
of chemical affinity or of mechanical force. When 
the cream gathers on the surface of milk; when 
straws and litter in the current become collected in 
an eddy ; when boiling syrup crystallizes into sugar ; 
when a crowd gathers in the street ; when various 
religious opinions cease discussion, and assent to a 
creed; when political parties stop agitation, and 
agree upon a platform ; when many things in action 
become one in repose ; all division of labor, all com- 
mittee work in legislative bodies, all specialties in 
skill, all variant moral notions formed into rules of 
conduct— all this is integration, or the first step in 
evolution. The exploring star-gazer, who, in imagin- 
ation, sees the worlds come out of the initial mist 
enveloping the beginning of all things, beholds inte- 
gration upon integration— the mist, the sphere, the 
system of spheres, and system of systems. The 
great law is exemplified in the rose bush of your 
garden. It is an organization of special elements, 
developing into structure, beauty, and sweetness. It 
is Will taking organic order. For further illustra- 
tion, take a given volume of oxygen and twice that 
volume of hydrogen. Bring these together and you 
have water; which is distinctly neither gas, yet 
chemically both. The hydrogen in it will no longer 
burn, nor will its oxygen any longer promote 



Laws are in New Relatio7is. loi 



combustion. Neither gas can then obey its own 
distinctive laws. When water was produced it 
brought its own law with it. Indeed, as the laws of 
a thing are in the thing itself, so a drop of water 
bears in its sphere a whole code of the laws of matter. 

Ethical law observes the same method. Moral 
thoughts integrate into moral convictions, and con- 
victions into laws, and laws into systems, and systems 
into codes. New laws are in new relations. The 
law does not anticipate the relation, but the relation 
exhibits the law. The law of evolution takes hold 
of the life within nature itself, and correlation man- 
ifests the movement of that life in its relations without. 

Suppose that only two men existed in the whole 
world, and each dwelt in a separate island. What- 
ever may be said of their rights when apart, bring 
them together and each becomes to the other a 
possible wrong-doer ; and, as to the other, each has 
rights. Chrysippus said, " Men exist for each other."^ 
As the hydrogen and oxygen together make some- 
thing that neither is by itself, so these two persons, 
when associated, develop a law of property and of 
person that neither needed by himself. The two 
coming together make a relation, and the relation is 
its own law.^ 

If there were but one person in all the world, the 
law of that one would be absolute selfishness. His 
ownership and possession would be exclusive — at 
least undisputed. All the sunlight would be his, all 



id) [Zeller on Stoicism, 312.] Protagoras said, "Relations are for all." 
(3) Paulus, Digest, Lib. i, Tit. 1-3; i Lecky E. M. 313. 



02 The Philosophy of the SMpernatural. 



the hills and valleys, all the springs and rivers, all the 
gold and silver, the cattle upon the thousand hills, all 
the trees and fruits, would be his. But the appear- 
ance of a second person would be another unit of 
selfishness, and if there was of any one thing only 
enough for one, and both sought it, there would be a 
conflict, in which the stronger would prevail. Each 
would be supreme to himself, but not to the other. 
But harmony requires law that shall be supreme over 

both. 

One law ties many different things together, and 
one method of law is the same as to matter and 
mind. If one thing could exist by itself, it would 
be powerless. One atom without another atom 
amounts to nothing.=^ The end of essential mo- 
rality is one of self-preservation, the survival of the 
fittest, or the perpetuation of that which has been 
begun. For illustration, when the second man ap- 
peared, the producing power cannot be supposed to 
have worked in the dark, or in vain. The producing 
power is also the preserving or continuing power. 
Therefore, that is right to be done by either or both 
of the two which will best preserve the two. This is 
not the ancient doctrine of Suminum Boman, because 
that looked to results that could not be estimated 
alike by all. The scope was too wide and remote 
for any one. But the law of harmony, discoverable 
by each one, was a law practicable to each one. But 
essential law is not more a law of harmony than a 



{a) " Nothing in this world is single, 
All things by a law divine 
In one another's being mingle." 



Everythmg Seeks Perfectibility. 103 



law of preservation ; and the question is, what exists 
to be preserved. For instance, when two men looked 
each other in the face for the first time, what were 
they to each other? Both had a right to live. Were 
they strang-ers, enemies, or brothers ? Or, when man 
and woman met for the first time, did they meet with 
permanent or transient interest in each other? Did 
the}^ meet as merely lower animals, or were the}^ 
social beings of a progressive destiny? The law is 
according to the answer to these questions. That 
only is done which is well done, and what is done is 
to be preserved. 

As everything in the universe seeks its own perfec- 
tion, so groups of things seek to create something 
that each is not, and which shall be higher than all. 
For instance, a tree is a compound. From the earth 
comes one agent, from the air another, and from 
the water another, and all these work together 
for the good of every other thing, and for their own 
glory. The one tree integrated, or evolved, out of 
these several crude elements, becomes a marvel of 
order and beauty. It is what none of the elements 
could be by itself, and only appeared when the}^ com- 
bined. Thus, integration, or initial evolution, is a 
way of creation. Antagonism subsides, discussion 
between individuals ceases, agreement is reached. 
The solidification of the diffuse, the fixedness of the 
elastic, the unification of the many, the repose of the 
disturbed, the equilibrium of the unstable, is the 
method of law — of development — whether in matter 
or society. By the universal law of compensation, 
what is lost in one direction is gained in another. 



:o4 The Philosophy of the Supernatural 



Hydrogen, in becoming a constituent of water, sur- 
renders its volatility, and becomes a standard of 
weight. Oxygen, to beccfme water, ceases to pro- 
mote combustion, but becomes active in extinguish- 
ing it. The will of the many individuals becomes 
the will of the one state. In a word, all things that 
come together must leave something of themselves 
in abeyance. All building, whether of worlds, of 
law, or of character, is on the same prmciple by 
which motion becomes organic rest; incoherence 
becomes coherence, and the transient becomes the 
permanent. This integrating principle has been 
active from the beginning. As the gaseous form ot 
the earth lost its heat, it lost some of its motion. 
Particles cohered or solidified ; the crust thickened, 
and effects multiplied upon effects, until chaos 
evolved into order, and light came from sun and 
star, and vegetal chemistry prepared food for think- 
ing beast and conscious man. 

What is law, and what are the ethics of law ? That 
social condition which is best is ethics ; and all ethics 
is law. All so-called law-making is the codification 
or integration of ethical ideas. Law is both an eth- 
ical principle and a logical rule. And yet the prin- 
ciple and the rule are not two distinct things, but 
only different sides of the same thing. Moralists 
ascertain and dehne the principle, legislatures pre- 
scribe, and courts announce the rule-m other words, 
there is statutory morality, adjudicated morahty, and 
speculative morality. The principle is to the rule 
what the soul is to the body, and without which the 
body cannot be. Cessante ratione, lex ccssat. Neither 



No Ethics in Law. 105 



the conscience nor the relations of society could long- 
tolerate an immoral law. Indeed, an immoral law is 
not law, though it may be aquiesced in as law. So- 
cial necessity as law emphatically forbids anything- 
contra bo7tos mores. Take the ethics out of law, and 
what have you left but a rule? Law and its max- 
ims are adjudicated ethics, or abstract ethics con- 
verted into an authoritative rule of action. For the 
purpose of getting at this ethical principle or right- 
ness in claims triable before the courts, are all the 
rules of evidence and all the forms of procedure. 
Ethics, or rightness, then, as the appointment of su- 
pernatural will, is the essence of law. In other words, 
law is only applied ethics. 

In the law, moral principles, like sunlight on a 
rolling planet, rest upon and glorify whichever side 
comes up. The sun is ever the same, but the side of 
the planet next to it is ever changing. Rather, mor- 
ality is to the law what sun is to the wheat; without 
the sun there is no wheat, and without morality there 
is no law. New events evolve new relations, and 
new relations bring their own moral principles, or 
laws, with them. Law is an optimist, and by drop- 
pmg the obsolete and applying the new, ever seeks 
its own perfection. Rules of conduct scattered 
through the moral sentiments of mankind attract 
each other, and become a code. This is legal inte- 
gration. Uncertainty, discussion, and conflicting 
opinion agree upon some formula to which applies 
the arbitrary doctrine of Stare Decicis—X^t the decis- 
ions stand ; let something be settled. Society seeks 
to know the universal truths concerning itself, and to 



o6 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



announce them as authoritative rules of conduct. 
The special is ever transmuting itself into the univer- 
sal, and the universal into the special, and the tem- 
poral is ever moving on into the eternal. The law 
of this universe is improvement, not change for the 
sake of change. 

The Jewish conscience, social habit§, and theocratic 
polity integrated in the Ten Commandments or code 
of Moses. Greek wisdom, sentiment, and conviction 
integrated in the code of Solon. Roman law was 
first a family discipline ; afterwards it integrated in 
the laws of the Twelve Tables, in the annual Edict 
of the Prsetor, in the Responses of the Jurisconsults, 
in the codes of Gregory, Hermogenes, and Justinian. 
All codifications are integrations ; and so universal is 
litigation, that codification upon codification is con- 
stantly made; nearly every dispute between man 
and man being now brought into court. 

Here, the complexity of material causes and the 
complexity of moral causes are the same in some 
principle common to both. What is that principle? 
The integration of hydrogen and oxygen produce 
water, a substance that is neither, but chemically 
both. So in moral law. Two individuals, in associ- 
ating, mingle their rights and form a third, including 
the individual rights of both, but exclusively the 
right of neither. The right of the two, when associ- 
ated, is as much a new right as a drop of water is a 
new compound. The moral and the material chem- 
istry is the same. But notice that I do not say that 
moral law is created by moral relations, only that it 
then appears. The unity of material and moral law 



Cause One; Effect Many. 107 



is in the unity of plan, or, rather, the unity of all 
law is in the unity of the idea of all law. Matter 
integrates and makes the world of matter. Moral 
principles integrate and make the laws of conduct. 
The integration of one is one with the integration of 
the other. 

But supplemental to this we see the unity of law in 
the further fact that all causes multiply their effects. 
Universally, the effect is more complex than the 
incomplex cause. Light a candle, and you have heat, 
light, carbonic acid, water, and divers colors. Throw 
a pebble in the ocean, and you move every drop in 
its awful fullness. Raise your hand or whisper a 
word, and you stir all the atmosphere that surrounds 
our globe. If law be a cause, we see the law of 
gravitation produce mian}^ effects in the water gath- 
ered in mountain-tops. As it gravitates down through 
the gorges, it gathers the materials for the masonry 
of its channel in the plains below. It abrades from 
the hillsides fragments of stone, picks up the sand 
and washes out the earth, carrying all in solution, 
until a less precipitous flow weakens its momentum. 
Then begins, from the one law of gravitation, a mul- 
tiplying of effects, calling out other laws. Gravita- 
tion pulls down its heaviest material along the 
margin, where the current begins to weaken. The 
masonry here is wonderfully perfect. Every pebble 
is laid exactly where the strength of the future bank 
of the river will most need it. Pebble is laid on 
pebble for years, it may be for centuries — for nature 
keeps no chronology — until the waters have walled 
themselves in, leaving the plains on either side as a 
home for man. 



:o8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



The second effect of gravitation, as it pulls the 
waters down the mountain-side, after it has surren- 
dered the pebble to form the wall of the bank, is to 
carry the lighter sand a little more to the side, and 
drop it behind the pebbles, as a parallel and support- 
ing buttress. 

The third effect is to carry the lighter soil still 
further back, and form a bank of earth behind both 
the former ; thus building for itself its own pathway 
to the receiving sea. Here are different, but consist- 
ent effects from the same law. 

Again, the sun shines on a field where both tares 
and wheat are sown. The same cause produces 
effects specifically different. It quickens both the 
the tares and the wheat. 

Again, one grain of wheat will produce manifold 
other grains. This wheat becomes food ; this food 
nourishes brain, this brain sustains the song of the 
poet, the eloquence of the orator, and the thought of 
the statesman. One case of infectious disease flies 
from man to man, until a dreadful epidemic lays 
towns, cities, and states in the grave. How trivial 
often the cause of disasters, and yet how multiplied 
the effects. From one little cell, life is said to con- 
tinue itself through all living forms. From the mon- 
otony of the inorganic mineral arose the innumerable 
vegetable life, with its marvelous functions of inhala- 
tion and exhalation, the chemistry of its assimilative 
powers, its beautiful forms, and the utilities of its 
fibrous substances. With it man builds the palace 
and the ship, the temple of worship and the den of 
despair, the forum of the law and the throne of 



Moral Gi^owth is Development. 109 



authority. Indeed, to specify the manifold effects 
of a cause would be to give a catalogue of the num- 
ber and splendor of all phenomena — of heat, light, 
electricity ; and of all forms, colors, sound, and 
motion. 

As in matter, so in morals. Moral effects from 
moral causes are prodigiously multiplied. Mackin- 
tosh and Buckle would have us believe the contrary ; 
but they lose sight of the fact that, while the theoret- 
ical morality of each man is left to self-culture and 
the teachings of religion and the philosophers, his 
practical morality, as it applies to his relations to his 
fellow-man, is taught him by municipal law and the 
courts ; and there is nothing stationary in the teach- 
ings of these. 

Society, as it grows older, and as new relations and 
questions arise, more and more prescribes and en- 
forces moral conduct. In nothing does civilization 
show less stagnation and more advance, than in the 
growing perfection of its law ; absorbing and adju- 
dicating, from age to age, the moral sentiments of 
mankind. Rome is still potential through her system 
of civil morahty as thought out by her jurisconsults 
and adjudicated by her prastors. Law being law 
only as it is morality, no one can say, in the presence 
of its voluminous body, that moral ideas are station- 
ary. Account for it as you may, whether by the 
influence of great religious or general intellectual 
culture, thousands and tens of thousands of great 
lawyers are so many great moralists, and show that 
moral science is the true and ever enlarging basis of 
law and of a true civilization. The highest happi- 



ilO 



The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 



ness of mankind lives along moral lines; and, as 
everything seeks its own perfection, so moral ideas 
must grow more and more enlightened and more 

universal. 

To show how moral causes multiply moral effects, 
take any one act of life. On the making of a prom- 
issory note, the drawing of a bill of exchange, there 
arises, with and in the act, a whole volume of moral 
rules called laws. The principle of rightness at once 
regulates its parties, their competency, rights, duties, 
and obligations. The conscience of the law looks 
well to the value of its consideration. Then there is 
the moral obligation of its acceptance, or its protest 
for non-acceptance, if a bill of exchange. There is 
punishment for its forgery, and help in the event of 
its loss. If one receive a little package to carry for 
hire, instantly that act is covered by many laws look- 
ing to the rights of owners and the responsibility of 
the carrier. If you speak of another's fair fame, law 
warns you to guard your lips. If you build a house, 
the law makes it your castle, gives you certain rights 
of defense. Laws forbidding burglary and arson at 
once come to protect it. 

There is a point of unity in all this in Will. The 
intention to go on and out of itself, is seen in an atom 
of matter and in a principle of morals. Each is 
instinct with the desire, so to speak, and is distm- 
guished by the act, of imparting or giving itself 
away to something else. An atom is not an orphan, 
or friendless, or without the sympathy of other 
atoms. As the acorn produces many oaks, the foun- 
tain produces many streams, the sun gives out many 
rays, and from ancestors descend many heirs, so no 



Unity is not Oneness, \\\ 



right is solitary or barren ; but rights beget rights, 
and duties beget duties. The law of ownership 
begets the law against trespass and against larceny. 
As no atom can be an outlaw, so law is multiplied as 
relations are multiplied. Indeed, the law of a thing 
is inseparable in the thing itself. As the universe is 
filled with things, so is it filled with law. Are not 
all these laws one, if their idea be one? 

But still more do the principles of material science 
show their identity with moral principles in Will, is 
the fact and law of aggregation. We mean by 
aggregation, not the importance of many things 
abstractly by themselves, but the concrete import- 
ance of one thing as related to every other thing. In 
the material world every atom is a help to every other 
atom. Things are different ; but they are dependent. 
Concord includes discords. There must be contrasts, 
as well as analogies. In colors, the mind could not 
endure monotony. Suppose there were but one 
color — everything were blue, yellow, or red — the 
universe would be intolerable. So in forms, the 
more varieties, the more individualities, the more 
pleasure we derive therefrom. 

This is not a movement of antipathy, but of sym- 
pathy ; not of aristocracy, but of fraternity ; not of 
affinity, but of association. In integration, things 
are both related, combined and assimilated. In 
aggi'egation there is relation and mutual help. In 
material aggregation, like things go to like. Similis 
simili gaudet. The law here is sympathy, not affinity. 
The result is association, not a compound. Things 
are together, not one. It is not integration, but 
aggregation ; not oneness, but unity. Antipathy for- 



112 



The Philosophy of the Siipernatural. 



bids like things to become one with unlike. The 
dove flies from the hawk; men and vipers cannot 
sleep in the same bed. The wind lifts the chaff into 
a cloud by itself, and leaves the wheat in a mass by 
itself. Species stay with species, and genus with 
genus. When unlike things attract each other, as 
oxygen and hydrogen, by the creative or integrating 
law of chemical affinity, they drop their individuality 
and become something else. In aggregation, every 
individual is distinct and separate in character, but 
joined in purpose with something else. 

The importance of any one law is seen in the con- 
fusion that would result if other laws did not exist. 
If laws arise, they must be interpreted and executed. 
Each department is dependent on the other. The 
executive is useless without the legislative, and the 
legislative without the executive. It is useless to 
declare a right unless it be protected and enforced. 
The law of propriety necessitates the law of penal- 
ties. The declaratory and the vindicatory are mutu- 
ally dependent on each other. 

The point of unity seen between material and 
moral aggregation is in the fact of universal depend- 
ence and the law of universal help. Everything, as 
we have said, depends upon every other thing, atom 
upon atom, principle on principle, and all on some- 
thing beyond them. Each link of the chain that 
hangs must hang from the same thing. If every- 
thing is under any one thing, in that one thing is 
unity. Helpfulness is omnipresent in matter, and 
helpfulness is omnipresent in mind and morals, and 
in the omnipresence of helpfulness is the unity of 
material and moral laws. 



LECTURE III. 



METHOD OF CREATION. 

The first lecture, after having proved supernatural 
Power, as is claimed, spoke of its manifestations as 
creative, causative and derivative. Causative and 
derivative manifestations were then considered ; we 
now come to the method of creative manifestations. 
Let us begin with 

I. The first atom or inorga7iic nature. What is crea- 
tion ? That is uncreated which has always been, and 
that is created which has not always been. The cre- 
ative method is, therefore, a way or method of new- 
ness ; and, in inorganic nature, it is seen in the first 
atom. The first atom is the crucial test of philosoph- 
ical systems. Whence is this first atom ? The first 
unexplained atom is the throne of a personal God, 
and the grave of an impersonal evolution. However 
much aside skeptical science may engage the atten- 
tion of reason, reason demands that science shall 
come back and account for the first atom, or be silent 
when religion gives the answers that science cannot. 
As to this, reason will not tolerate the least evasion, 
equivocation, or omission. Skeptical science must 
begin at the beginning. The first atom ! whence 
is it ? 

8 



114 ^^^^ Philosophy of the Sipei^iiahcral. 

Evolution, as a mere method of integrating matter, 
assumes the existence of matter, and does not open 
the question of its origin. But when Mr. Spencer 
announced evolution as eternal and universal, exclud- 
ing the action of will and the work of creation, he 
antagonized the theistic philosophy, and the basis of 
all religion. Evolution as a mere method of Power, 
leaving to religion the deification of that power as a 
personal Being, was a harmless theory. But inten- 
tionally or unintentionally, Mr. Spencer attacks the 
very basis of religion, when he so impersonalizes 
Power as to leave to religion nothing to worship. 
For a person to worship a thing is debasing fetich- 
ism. The creative method of supernatural will is a 
way of newness — of originality — of production. Di- 
rect creation is of kinds or types ; indirect or genetic 
creation is of individuals. 

Mr. Spencer sa)^s : '' A Power of which the nature 
remains forever inconceivable, and to which no limits 
in time or space can be imagined, works in us certain 
effects " (F. P., § 194). Again, " All things are man- 
ifestations of a Power that transcends our knowl- 
edge " (lb. §28). We have seen that the elastic word 
manifestation covers the ideas of causation and deri- 
vation, and we now proceed to show that its meaning 
is that of creation. Power and its manifestations are 
not two infinities. For Mr. Spencer asks, " How 
self-destructive is the assumption of two or more 
Infinities, is manifest on remembering that such In- 
finities, by limiting each other, would become finite" 
(F. P., § 24). But while we have not two Infinites, 
we do have one Power unlimited in time and space. 



All is Created that is not Eternal. 1 15 



with limited manifestations. We start Avith Power. 
Power is not its manifestation, nor is manifestation 
Power ; but as the spider spins its web from itself, so 
supernatural Power manifests nature from itself. The 
first manifestation of Power was the first creation by 
Power of unlike from unlike. If Power is eternal, 
the manifestations of Power are not eternal. If the 
manifestations of Power are not eternal, shall we call 
them creations or evolutions? Theists call them the 
creations of a personal Being; atheists or agnostics 
call them the evolutions of impersonal Power. But 
they are one or the other. How shall we decide 
which ? Mr. Spencer says " the affirmation of uni- 
versal evolution is, in itself, the negation of the abso- 
lute commencement of anything." '' The absolute 
commencement of organic life on the globe, * -5^ * 
I distinctly deny" (i Bio., 482). A commencement 
is all that is claimed, whether it be called absolute or 
relative. Mr. Spencer asks, '' Is it supposed that a 
new organism when specially created, is created out 
of nothing? If so, there is a supposed creation of 
matter ; and the creation of matter is inconceivable 
(i Biol., §112). Of course, in this as well as else- 
where, Mr. Spencer is planted directly against crea- 
tion. But what is creation ? Power is admitted, and 
its manifestations are admitted. If manifestations 
are not eternal as eternal Power, then they are com- 
menced. According to Mr. Spencer, " evolution is 
always to be regarded as fundamentally an integra- 
tion of matter and dissipation of motion." This in- 
tegration is either of inorganic matter, or of organic 
matter. The evoluion of inorganic matter, Mr. Spen- 



1 1 6 The Philosophy of the Sttpernahtral. 



cer passes without formal discussion. He says, pa- 
renthetically, in his preface to his treatise on First 
Principles, " in logical order should here come the 
application of these First Principles to Inorganic 
Nature. But this great division it is proposed to 
pass over ; partly because even without it, the scheme 
is too extensive ; and partly because the interpreta- 
tion of organic nature, after the proposed method, is 
of more importance.'' This is, indeed, a vast and in- 
excusable leap ; but thus to decapitate evolution, is 
to take the brains with its head. Mr. Spencer dis- 
cusses organic nature, denying that he is compelled 
to assume a first organism ; and in passing over in- 
organic nature, he escapes the necessity to account for 
a tirst atom. Certain it is, that in leaping over inor- 
ganic to organic nature, he assumes the existence of 
the inorganic nature when he makes it a basis of 
organic nature. A material atom is a fact, though 
hypothetical, and the question is, who is its factor? 
In passing over the inorganic, Mr. Spencer ignores 
the philosophical key of the philosophical arch. 

Agnostic or atheistic evolution begins at the 
organic ; but in accounting for that, it accounts for 
nothing else ; but theistic evolution begins far back at 
the inorganic, and in accounting for that it accounts 
for all else. The Power that manifests an atom, 
manifests the universe. He ignores a personal Crea- 
tor in admitting an impersonal Power; and in mani- 
festing some of the organic manifestations, he passes 
over, as of less importance, the origin of the inor- 
ganic on which the organic rests. We propose to 
go from where Mr. Spencer begins in the organic 



The Organic Rests on the Inorganic. iij 



back to the inorganic on which the organic rests 
His system of philosophy is like a house with an 
unknown foundation. He denies that he is a materi- 
alist, and yet he has built on inorganic matter and 
impersonal Power, for which he has not accounted. 
Agnostic science assumes, unless its eternity be as- 
sumed, that Power manifesting all things is imper- 
sonal. Mr. Spencer, in passing over unknowable 
matter in inorganic nature, cannot suppress an inquiry 
as to the Unknown Power behind the Unknown Real- 
ity of the symbol of matter. If the organic rests on 
the inorganic (see i Biol. § 14), what does the inor- 
ganic rest on? The human mind will not consent 
that Mr. Spencer may begin his agnostic philosophy 
where he pleases, and ignore, as less important, truths 
that explode its conclusions. Let us push this pseudo 
materialism beyond matter, to that on which matter 
rests. Mr. Spencer says that there is no matter, but 
that which we call matter is only a symbol of some 
Unknowable Reality. What is that? It is said to 
be impersonal and unintelligent ; and right here is 
the issue. To know what this Unknowable Reality 
is, it would be more fundamental in that which aspires 
to be a philosophy, to go back from the line of causes 
in later phenomena as seen in organic nature to the 
First Cause in which they all began, beyond inorganic 
nature. We cannot understand secondary causes so 
long as we are utterly ignorant of the Cause of causes. 
It is not sufficient for this agnostic evolution to begin 
arbitrarily at the organic, and say that its foundation 
is the inorganic. True philosophy seeks to know 
what is the foundation of the foundation. Religion 



1 1 8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

says to evolutionists you have admitted a Power 
unlimited in time and space ; and it claims, from human 
personality, to have proved superhuman personality. 
The demand, therefore, will not be silenced, that evo- 
lutionists shall admit or deny the connection between 
this supernatural Power and inorganic nature, as 
well as with organic. Religion devoutly kneels 
before the Power in both organic and inorganic evo- 
lution ; while science, as just said, keeps in view only 
the method of organic evolution, and ignores the 
method of inorganic origin and the Power behind 
both. 

The creative principles necessary to inorganic evo- 
lution apply to organic evolution, but the genetic 
principles of organic evolution do not apply to inor- 
ganic evolution. It is only when Power has objecti- 
fied itself in not only inorganic substance, but in 
organisms built on that substance, that formal consid- 
eration, certainly of organic evolution, begins. It is 
in the presence of life in organic evolution, for which 
the integration of matter and the dissipation of 
motion do not account, that evolution, seems only 
the equivalent of growth, and not at all like inorganic 
evolution ; if such there be. 

It was a method of Will-Power that manifestations 
should be new, whether by what is called creation or 
evolution ; it was a method to continue types ; it was 
a method that things and forces should be exchanged 
or correlated. 

The elements, the seasons, the universe of worlds 
and systems of worlds manifest the phenomenal ener- 
gies of this omnipresent Power. Manifestation is 



Manifestations have a Chronology. 119 

the word that covers all ideas of this activity, whether 
Qianifestation means creation, causation, derivation, 
correlation, generation or evolution. This power 
goes forth in some way. There is a- manifestation 
that is creation. 

Have the creative manifestations of supernatural 
Will-Power a chronology ? The time consumed in 
supernatural manifestations is not prescribed. God 
is not slack as some men count slackness. With him 
one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years 
is as one day. As the era of supernatural Power is 
eternal, it keeps no record of time or of progress 
definite to man. To itself, eternity is one eternal 
Now. The human cannot chronologize th« super- 
human or the natural the supernatural. As there is 
no time in eternity so there is no date to the eternal 
in the manifestations of the eternal. 

It is said that *' It is almost an absolute and de- 
monstrable certainty that the human race appeared on 
the earth long periods before there was any such 
chronology as the church has hitherto held." Noth- 
ing in science is more dogmatic than this. A few 
scientists hold up the little light they have to the 
scarp of hills heaved from the depths below, and say, 
as this mass has been forming so many years, there- 
fore the whole earth has been so many untold ages 
in its formation. All such calculations seem to be 
uncertain if yoM admit the instantaneous revolutions 
of catastrophies as factors. Shall we adopt the Uni- 
formity or the Catastrophic theory of the Cosmos ? 
It is not important that we fix upon any period as the 
age of the world. The Bible says that " in the begin- 



T 20 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

ning God created the heavens and the earth," but 
does not say when that beginning- was. It has been 
said that the " chronology based upon the Sacred 
Scriptures, is acknowledged by the very men who 
made it to be uncertain." But is the chronology based 
upon science any more certain ? The chronology of 
the Bible and of science are both equally uncertain. 
The point made here is, that the uncertain chronology 
of science shall not be used, in proving the chronol- 
ogy of the Bible to be uncertain, to prove that the 
Bible itself is therefore untrue. It is merely human 
opinion as to how old the world is, whether the cal- 
culation be made from the facts of the Bible or the 
facts of nature. Some few scientists rejoice that 
they have destroyed the Bible itself because they 
have destroyed a chronology which the Bible does 
not set up. God made the Bible, and man has read 
into it a chronology which God did not put into it. 

But the material phenomena around us show the 
work of ages, and the work of special moments. We 
see the work of ages in the uniformity of the rocky 
formations ; and we see the catastrophic work of 
dreadful moments, when the hills heaved up, the val- 
leys dropped down, and the shallow waters gathered 
into deep seas. The catastrophic evidences of these 
great instantaneous convulsions, impress us more than 
all other facts in nature. That is, the fast movements 
of nature tell us more than the slow movements of 
nature. When we stand by the ocean shore and look 
off into its inscrutable depths, and remember that 
they were formed by one exertion of awful power, or 
stand upon the sublime summit of heaven-reaching 



Force a Name for Pow 67^. 121 



mountains, and remember that in one instant of 
omnific energy, they arose as thrones of the Infi- 
nite, we see that nature does not always take eons of 
time to do her grandest w^ork. We see how idle it is 
to assume that what we see was necessarily the slow 
work of Power. We see not only that nature can 
work prodigiously fast, but that she actually has 
worked prodigiously fast. All the proof we have, is 
of nature's fast work ; while we have only conjecture 
that she has worked in the slow uniformity of ages. 
A few months only intervene between snow and 
flowers, between seed-time and harvest, between 
birth and burial. Think of the rapidity with which 
nature moves! Though we seem to stand still, yet, 
during the hour we shall, by revolution of the earth, 
be a thousand miles away from the point in space 
where we were when we entered this house; and, in 
our orbit around the sun, we shall be 68,000 miles 
away from where we were when w^e entered it. We 
move nineteen miles at every tick of the clock. The 
earth has to make, in one year, a distance of 545,000,- 
000 of miles. Sound travels over a thousand feet 
each second. Light flies 190,000 miles a second. 
Nature needs no million of ages to make so small an 
affair as this earth, unless she worked infinitely slower 
m the past than we know she works in the present 
(see F. P., § 17). Science must deny its own facts in 
order to deny the Bible account of creation. 

If we start with Power, force must be another 
name for that Power itself, or force must be a crea- 
tion of that power. We agree with the remark of 
Sir John F. W. Herschell, before quoted, that ''in 



12 2 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



the only case in which we are admitted into personal 
knowledge of the origin of force, we find it connected 
with volition, and by inevitable consequence, with 
motive and intellect, and with all those attributes of 
mind in which personality consists." We start with 
Will. Will is force, force or Will is Power. From 
the consciousness of our own human will-power and 
its methods, we must infer a superhuman will-power 
and its methods. We have seen that the Power is 
one ; we shall now see that the methods are many. 

Personal, supernatural Power may manifest itself 
without means, ex mero motu^ as seen in sporadic acts 
of Power called miracles and providence ; or Power 
may prescribe to itself methods of means as seen in 
the method we are to discuss. 

The method is either creative, as seen primarily in 
the atom of inorganic nature, where matter is begun ; 
and in the first organism of organic nature ; or the 
method is causative, as seen in inorganic relations 
where the elements of nature are combined or ex- 
changed ; or the method is derivative or genetic, as 
seen primarily in organic nature, where kind propa- 
gates its kind. Either method is as supernatural as 
its Power. 

Mr. Spencer says that " we are obliged to regard 
every phenomenon as a manifestation of some Power 
by which we are acted upon " (F. P., § 27). But how 
does manifestation differ from creation ? Does Power 
evolve itself, and from itself manifest or produce 
things not itself, as the spider does its web? That 
is, are these manifestations of Power its intrinsic 
transformations or its extrinsic creations? Does 



Dental Proves Nothing. 123 



manifestation mean transformation, transubstantia- 
tion, transmutation, metamorphosis ? Does manifest- 
ation imply that supernature naturalizes itself, or 
that the subject objectifies itself, or that infinite mind 
finitely contracts itself, or that the Creator creates 
outside himself that which the Creator himself is not? 
Materialists teach the eternity of matter, and of 
course deny its creation ; because, they say, that 
something cannot be created out of nothing. Nothing, 
in the sense of negation, can produce nothing. What- 
ever else may or may not be eternal, all admit that 
Power is eternal. Even if Power and matter be co- 
eternal, and concomitant. Power controls matter; 
and, if Power controls matter, must it not have pro- 
duced it? and is it not reasonable to conclude that 
such a superior as Power tnust have produced such 
an inferior as matter? Indeed, Mr. Spencer admits 
this in saying, that *' we are obliged to regard every 
phenomenon as a manifestation of some Power." 
This seems to amount either to impersonal Panthe- 
ism, in which all is an impersonal God or to admit 
creation, in which a personal God creates all things. 
An incomprehensibility is not solved by its denial 
or by the affirmation of another incomprehensibility. 
To say that something cannot be made out of nothing, 
does not prove the eternity of matter. Both are 
alike incomprehensible. We cannot conceive of 
the eternity of matter, and yet Mr. Spencer says, 
speaking of special creations, *' It is supposed that a 
new organism, when specially created, is created out 
of nothing? If so, there is a supposed creation of 
matter; and the creation of matter is inconceivable — 



124 ^^^^ Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

implies the establishment of a relation in thought be- 
tween nothing and something — a relation of which 
one term is absent — an impossible relation." " The 
creation of force is just as inconceivable as the crea- 
tion of matter " (i Biol., § 112). Again he says, " All 
things are manifestations of a Power that transcends 
our knowledge and that which is not one is the 
other" (F. P., § 28). 

As said before, the uncreated, as the eternal, is that 
which has always been ; the created is that which has 
not always been. Power has always been and is 
therefore uncreated. The manifestations of Power 
have not been always and are therefore creations. 
Matter is a manifestation of Power, or it is Power ; 
but if matter is Power, then what is Power; if 
Power is matter, then what is matter? But as unlim- 
ited Power is infinite, and as there cannot be two 
infinities (F. P., § 24), so either matter is Power, or 
matter is finite, and if finite it is created. The doc- 
trine is not that something was not made out of 
nothing ; but when there was nothing but Being, 
something was made. It is impossible to conceive of 
the eternity either of impersonal matter, or of a per- 
sonal God. The eternal — the Absolute — the Infinite 
— is the incomprehensible. We can know nothing 
about the eternity or the creation of matter ; but lit- 
tle as to the personality or impersonality of Power; 
nor can we know any more as to what cause is, what 
law is, or what nature is. At best we see as through 
a glass, darkly, and know that there is an eternal 
Being. Where no opinion can be absolutely certain, 
we must take that view which leads to the best lifer 



Two Infinites Impossible. 125 



and the most hopeful death. We think that a belief 
in a personal God does this. How God is an omni- 
present person— how intelligence and will can be 
omnipresent— how God created matter when there 
was nothing, or transformed himself into matter— all 
this is utterly incomprehensible. But to set up mat- 
ter and deny God, does not solve the mystery. The 
eternity of matter and the denial of God are as great 
a mystery as the eternity of God and the creation of 
matter. As there cannot be two infinities, if matter 
is eternal, God is not at all ; if God is at all, matter 
cannot be eternal. 

We cannot, indeed, conceive of the creation of or 
of the evolution of something out of nothing ; but can 
we say that there is nothing where there is Power? 
Power must be something, or all manifestations of 
Power would be manifestations of something by 
nothing out of nothing, and this manifestation no less 
in evolution than in creation; that is, there is no 
more incomprehensibility in saying that something 
was created out of nothing, than in saying that some- 
thing was evolved out of nothing. But, as Power is 
something, in denying the eternity of matter, we do 
not affirm that it is produced out of nothing when 
we say that it was produced out of Power. Matter 
interprets Power, and matter is a substance from 
Power. Does Power create matter by becoming 
matter? that is, is not the Power to create matter the 
Power to be matter itself? and the reverse. 

In materialism, philosophy starts from the doctrine 
of eternal matter; in idealism, it starts from the de- 
nial of matter ; in theism, it starts from the belief in 



126 The Philosophy of the Super fiaturac. 



an eternal person. The worship of eternal Power in 
an eternal Person, is religion. Everything according 
to evolution is the metamorphosis of personal or im- 
personal Power. When a certain manifestation of 
Power is present, we call it life ; when there is no 
manifestation of the same Power, we call it death.. 
That which is called cause does not produce that 
which is called effect ; but both cause and effect are 
threaded, like beads, on the string of Power. 

Continuity as a method of Power pertains only to 
the past and present, but not necessarily to the future ; 
and is not between cause and effect, as such ; but 
future continuity is in the persistence of the admitted 
Power by which the cause is cause, and by which the 
effect is effect. Cause and effect are but names given 
to successive phases, or phenomena of Power— nou- 
menal Power. Cause is an energy of Power and 
effect is a result of Power. In a word, unthinkable 
Power produces thinkable things. A thing is that 
which is thinkable, and ;^^thing is, not the non-exist- 
ent, but merely that abstract existence, which is un- 
thinkable. Think and thing are radically the same 
word, the verb ending in the sharp k, and the noun 
ending in the flat g. We think a thing in the same 
sense as we dream a dream, act an act, or do a deed. 
To say that somet\(\x\^ cannot be made out of ;z^thing, 
is to say that the thinkable cannot be made out of the 
unthinkable; but thinkable something is from un- 
thinkable Power. 

What is thinkable ? The unthinkable, in the sense 

of the non-existent, cannot be represented in thought. 

• Mr. Herbert Spencer (F. P., § 29) says, '' though the 



Nothing is not Thinkable. \ 2 7 



law of gravitation is within our mental grasp, it is 
impossible to realize in thought the force of gravita- 
tion. ^ * * In grouping particular relations of 
phenomena under laws, and these special laws under 
laws more and more general, is of necessity a progress 
to causes that are more and more abstract, and causes 
more and more abstract are of necessity causes less 
and less conceivable ; since the formation of an ab- 
stract conception involves the dropping of certain 
concrete elements of thought. Hence the most ab- 
stract conception, to Avhich science is ever slowly 
approaching, is one that merges into the inconceiva- 
ble or unthinkable." If the inconceivable or unthink- 
able is ;?^thing merely because it is unthinkable 
(which point of the unthinkable, science is ever slowly 
approaching), science is ever more and more proving 
that unthinkable j^?/2^thing is made out of unthinkable 
/^^thing. Is force noXhing because inconceivable or 
unthinkable ? We may not be able to grasp in thought 
what we can logically prove to exist. Realities are 
none the less realities because incomprehensible or 
unthinkable; nearly all realities are incomprehensi- 
ble. If all ultimates are nothing because unthinkable, 
as everything is made out of ultimates, so everything 
is made out of nothing. All modern thinkers admit 
the omnipresence of Power— parturient Power— man- 
ifested Power— inconceivable Power. But is Power 
nothing because inconceivable or unthinkable? If 
Power is a name of the negation called nothing, then 
all evolution of Power is something developed out of 
nothing,— in a word, that the thinkable something, 
called facts, are made out of unthinkable Power 



128 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



called nothing because unthinkable. But, if Power, 
though inconceivable or unthinkable, is something, 
then, as things are things, there are things thinkable 
and things unthinkable— things material and things 
immaterial— and things material are made out of 
things immaterial— tangible things out of intangible 

Power. 

Mr. Spencer denies both the eternity of matter and 
the commencement of matter. In a communication 
in reply to a critic, written for the North American 
Review, dated London, December 5, 1868, and re-pub- 
lished in an appendix to the first volume of his Biol- 
ogy, he says: "that, however, which I regard as 
most reprehensible in his criticism is the way in which 
he persists in representing the Systein of Philosophy I 
am working out as a materialistic system. Already 
he has once before so represented it, and the injustice 
of so representing it has been pointed out. He 
knows that I have repeatedly and emphatically 
asserted that our conceptions of matter and motion 
are but symbols of an Unknowable Reality ; that this 
reality cannot be that which we symbolize it to be." 
{Italics ours) If we understand him, that which we 
conceive of as matter is not matter, but only a sym- 
bol of an Unknowable ReaKty. Of course he can 
be no materialist, because he denies the very exist- 
ence of matter. He would be called a Potentialist, 

if classified at all. 

What, then, is this system of philosophy that is 
neither materialism, nor idealism, nor pantheism? 
As Mr. Spencer says, "the problem to be resolved is 
a problem of dynamics," he has given the name of 



Power is its own Measm^e. 129 



Power to this Unknowable Reality behind the symbol 
of matter. In such a system Power as Power is 
neither matter, nor mind, nor being-; but, as modes, 
Power might be, as it would seem, either or neither 
or both. Power is its own measure. Power is its 
own interpreter. Mr. Spencer does not say whether 
this Power is personal or impersonal. 

If Mr. S. were a materialist, he would believe in 
the eternity of matter; but, though he does not 
believe in the eternity of matter, he does not believe 
in its creation ; for that would be the commencement 
of matter. With him all that now is, is all that ever 
has been ; and that ever will be, is all that now is. 
According to his theory, there could be no such com- 
mencement ; for he says, as we have seen, that '' the 
affirmation of universal evolution is in itself a nega- 
tion of an absolute commencing of anything." That 
which has never commenced and is not eternal when 
all is eternal, is not at all. So, as matter is neither 
eternal nor has a commencement, there is no matter. 
And yet, he everywhere means by evolution the pro- 
cess which is always an integration of matter. If 
Mr. Spencer does not mean to assume matter, when 
he says that it integrates, he must go back and show 
how matter, before it integrates, came to be matter 
at all. If we understand Mr. Spencer, matter and 
motion are but symbols of an Unknowable Reality. 
Then, evolution is an integration of an Unknowable 
Reality with the concomitant dissipation of another 
Unknowable Reality. We know that this Reality is 
not that which we symbolize it to be. If Power 
materializes, and evolution is the integration of mat- 
9 



30 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



ter, the evolution is the integration of materialized 
Power— in other words, matter is only a form of 

Power. 

We start with omnipresent, formless Power. In 
some way we must get from Power to Form. Om-^ 
nipotence is parturient of all forms and substances ; 
and the creation of something out of nothing is na 
more incomprehensible, than that Power should ma- 
terialize itself, or that matter should be eternal, or 
that matter should mentalize itself. And, yet, some 
minds to whom two incomprehensibilities are equally 
difficult can bring themselves to accept one incom- 
prehensibility and reject another. And yet that 
matter is a manifestation of Power, is more thinkable 
than the eternity of matter. 

If evolution is the method of the universe, then it 
covers inorganic atoms; which must be creatively 
evolved, ab extra, or not be evolved at all; as each 
atom holds its own Power. One atom cannot evolve 
or manifest another atom. If, in universal evolution^ 
there is no absolute commencement of anything^ 
then the matter to be integrated in evolution is eternal 
and the process of evolution is eternal— that is, there 
must be an eternal evolution, by eternal Power, of 

eternal matter. 

Religionists and some scientists are not agreed as 
to the manifestations of this Power. The former 
contend that Power commenced or created thuigs ; 
some of the latter contend that matter is eternal; 
others, such as Mr. Spencer, contend that matter was 
neither eternal nor created, but that there has been 
an eternal process or parturition— that what we call 



Active Power is Creation. 131 



matter is not matter, but only a symbol of that which 
has ever been becoming- matter. The distinct doc- 
trine of those who believe in creation is, that what is 
now, once was not. The distinct doctrine of evolu^ 
tionists is, that that which is, has ever been coming 
and will ever be going. But both agree in this— that 
the phenomena which are, whether by direct act of 
personal creation or by the eternal process of imper- 
sonal evolution, once were not, and if they once were 
not, we say they must be new. Thus, as the new is 
the created, the ever-becoming of impersonal evolu- 
tion is ever the new of a ceaseless creation of per- 
sonal Power. 

We do not ask Power how it manifested, com- 
menced, made or created things, whether out of itself 
or out of nothing. All-Power knows its own possi- 
bilities, so to speak, and can'do all things. All mani- 
festations of Power, as they are new in the universe, 
are creations in the universe, whatever we call these 
manifestations, whether evolution, emanation, crea- 
tion, metamorphosis or generation. 

Power was first, and, at first, Power was all. The 
first manifestation of Power was form. The first form 
was that of an atom, and the first atom was the first 
form. Form was not as old as Power, for form was 
a manifestation of Power. Eternal manifestation of 
eternal Power is utterly unthinkable. The first man- 
ifestation of Power was that activity of Power 
called creation. It was called creation because it 
commenced phenomena. JMr. Spencer denies this 
commencement. He says '' the affirmation of univer- 
sal evolution is, in itself, the negation of the absolute 



132 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



commencement of anything/' As Mr. Spencer denies 
being a materialist, he denies the eternity of matter, 
and as he denies the absolute commencement of any- 
thing, whether a first atom or a first organism, he 
denies the creation of matter ; so there is nothing 
left for him but to believe in the eternal process— \}i\^ 
ever becoming of Heraclitus. But what is it that is 
ever becoming but never is? According to such 
teaching, as there is no matter or only the symbol of 
matter, Power must be the ever becoming of itself. 
But this will be more specially discussed in the lec- 
ture on evolution. But if Power is ever becoming, 
and never becomes matter, it must be because Power 
either cannot or will not become matter. To say 
that Power will not is, in will, to admit a personal 
factor which is denied ; and to say that it cannot, is 
to deny that it is Power,^as affirmed. We therefore 
conclude that as Power is Power, it can materialize 
itself as matter, or, it can produce— manifest-create 
matter. Power is manifested as direct creation in 
the first atom and in the first organism ; and as indi- 
rect creation in the second or inherited organism. 

Right here, in the real or hypothetical atom of 
inorganic nature, is the battle ground of religion and 
science. If the theory of evolution is to give us 
light anvwhere, it ought to give it here. Does evo- 
lution account for the first atom ? On the contrary, 
it denies that there was a first atom. Agnostic if not 
atheistic evolutionists cannot admit a created atom ; 
for that implies a creator. As they hold to an eter- 
nal Power, they deny eternal matter. But to say 
that matter is neither created nor eternal is to say, 



Power is First. 133, 



that Avhile eternal Power is ever becoming matter, 
yet matter never is — that a materiah'zing tendenc}^ is 
all. Thus evolution, like a blind bat flying- in the 
dark between the two unknown walls of the inorganic 
and the organic, finds no outlet. Evolution, defined 
as the integration of matter and the dissipation of 
motion, confessedly passes over the inorganic atom 
to be integrated, and does not prove the mental and 
vital force in organic phenomena to which it is com- 
pelled to apply. The whole theory of atheistic evo- 
lution is buried in an unexplained atom. If Power 
is eternal, and all things, of course including atoms, 
are manifestations of this Power, then nothing but 
Power can be eternal, for things manifested cannot 
be as old as the manifesting Power. 

Mr. Spencer says " a Power of which the nature 
remains forever inconceivable and to which no limits 
in time and space can be imagined, works in us cer- 
tain effects." (F. P. § 194.) His expression elsewhere 
is, ''all things are manifestations of a Power that 
transcends our knowledge." (F. P. § 27.) The man- 
ifestions of this Power are both inorganic nature, and 
things and persons with life. Creation is direct when 
Power produces that which Power is not— as the 
mould, the bullet; such as inorganic things or 
things without life— the first atom, the first molecule, 
the first mass. The created is the new— the original. 
Things are eternal, or they are begun. That which 
is not one, is the other. But Power unlimited in 
Time and Space is eternal, and never began, and all 
that is not eternal Power, when eternal Power was 
all, is begun. So, then, we start with Power—Will- 



34 The Philosophy of the SupernahiraL 



Power — personal or impersonal. As just said, Power 
was first ; and, at first, Power was all. What could 
be without Power? To admit eternal Power is to 
admit that all else is at its sufferance. Whatever 
was second was a manifestation of the first ; and, if 
the first was supreme, it was eternal, and the second 
was not eternal; and because it was not eternal, it 
was new ; and, because it was new, it was created. 

Power being admitted to be the fons et origo of all 
things, all things must be either created by Power, 
caused by Power, or derived from Power. If all 
things are derived, then the principle of like from 
like prevails; from Power only Power could be 
derived, conscious human beings from a conscious 
Superhuman Being, and impersonal things from im- 
personal, trees from trees, rocks from rocks, beast 
from beast. But, as we see, all manifestations of 
Power are. not derivatives of like from like, and that 
Power must create or cause all manifestations of 
Power that Power is not Derivation is for organic 
nature, and for the organic nature only. Inorganic 
nature is one unsuspended creation or the result of 
causation. 

The underived is that which never commenced, as 
the derived is that which was commenced. To com- 
mence things is to create them, and that is underived 
and therefore uncreated which has always been. 
That is created which has not always been ; as when 
Power manifests itself, not as Power, but as Form, or 
as anything which Power is not. According to evo- 
lution, as Power only is eternal, it would seem to 
follow, that the manifestation of eternal Power, 



All but Power is New. 135 



whether by what we call the process of evolution or 
by what we call the method of creation, cannot be 
eternal. Therefore, the manifestations of eternal 
Power"may be either a process or method; yet, all 
•new manifestations are logically proved to be methods 
of creative manifestations. The first grain, say of 
wheat, because the first grain of wheat was something 
that had never been before, was manifested creatively 
from Power; and the second grain of wheat was 
•created genetically by Power from the first. If there 
is no absolute commencement of anything, then there 
is an eternal continuity of commencements; for the 
second genetic grain of wheat proves that there was 
^ first created grain. The methods are cumulative. 
The creative method is derived from underived 
Power; and the genetic method is derived from the 
•created. Everything is directly or indirectly created 
but uncreated Power. Creation is the addition of 
lany new manifestation of unlimited Power. Power 
thus unlimited in Time and Space, manifests the 
addition of material, atomic elements, or of inor- 
ganic nature, and then the addition of organic nature. 
Each step is the addition of a new, and therefore a 
creative manifestation of original Power. At all 
iimes, all but Power is new; and, therefore, all but power 
is created. All manifestations, transformations, trans- 
mutations, metamorphoses, transubstantiations, or 
causations are creations, because they are new and not 
eternal ; for nothing eternal is new, and nothing new 
is eternal. As all but Power is unstable, so instability 
of the homogeneous is new and, therefore a creation. 
The transformation of the homogeneous into the 



136 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

heterogeneous is the addition of a new and, therefore^, 
a creative manifestation of Power. If all develop- 
ment is evolution, all addition is creation. 

All manifestation is a creation, not an emanation ? 
What is the difference ? Emanation, as the word im- 
plies, is when Power (when Power was all) goes 
forth from itself as Power, whether that Power is 
called Power, force, or energy, such as gravitation, 
chemic affinity, and so on. Creation is when Power 
does not go forth from itself as Power, but when it 
manifests Form. Force is nothing new to Power,, 
for it is Power itself; but Form is new to Power, for 
it is not Power. Power, therefore, creates when it 
manifests anything that Power is not, which is, there- 
fore, something new ; and while only omniscient can 
interpret omnipotence, yet it is certain as just said 
that All-Power can do all things. 

The difference between creation, causation, and 
evolution is, that in inorganic nature the first is a 
creation, and the use that Power as force makes of 
that creation, is causation ; and in organic nature the 
first of anything is a creation ; the second of the 
same thing is a derivative or generative development 
from the first — or rather, evolution as defined, or 
described, is the process of culrainative creation ; 
whether of the origin of atoms, the relations of things, 
or the persistence of things. If all things are mani- 
festations of a Power that transcends our knowledge, 
we ask again, what is the manifestation ? Manifesta- 
tion by Power is not the Power itself, and Power is 
not the manifestation. We must find that first aio7n 
in inorganic nature, in the creativeness of Power or 



Genetic Power is Creative Pozver, 137 

in the eternity of all atoms, somewhere in eternal 
Power. If evolution is eternally creative, it is so in 
the passage of eternal Power into eternal atoms; and 
the passage of these atoms from a diffused to an 
aggregated state, is culminative evolution. The cre- 
ative evolution of the atomic matter which Mr. Spen- 
cer does not define, must be prior to that correlative 
evolution of atomic matter which he does not define 
or describe. 

Methods of uniformity advancing to multiformity^ 
include all the facts of the universe, and cover lines 
of nature without life, and lines of nature with life. 
We have, therefore, two methods of manifestation ; 
one, direct in either the creation or causation of all 
things, with and without life ; and another indirect, in 
the generation or delegated creation of all things 
with life. It is a method of beginning things, and 
a method of continuing things. A drop of water 
illustrates the first, and a mustard-seed illustrates the 
second. Things without life are creatively begun, 
and creatively continued, and causatively combined. 
With the drop of water, unable to repeat itself, 
unbroken existence is unbroken creation. Things 
with life are creatively begun and genetically con- 
tinued. With the mustard seed, the power of its 
direct creation remains in it as the power of its direct 
generation ; but whatever is direct generation to 
nature, is indirect creation to supernature. Genetic 
power is creative power, delegative. Natural gene- 
ration is supernatural creation, at second hand. If 
the maxim of human Xth^n — qui facit per alium, facit 
per se — what one does by another, he does by him- 



138 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

self — could be applied to superhuman law, God him- 
self would be said to create that which He appoints 
and empowers another to generate. Let us remem- 
ber that we speak of nature as the method of super- 
nature. 

Things without life are extrinsically created ; 
things with life are intrinsically generated. Mind 
presides ever the sphere of like things of life, where 
by fixed intelligence in lower spheres things propa- 
gate things like themselves, as oaks propagate oaks, 
and wheat propagates wheat. But in the sphere of 
unlike things without life, such as oxygen and hy- 
drogen, all depends on extrinsic creation by free 
intelligence. Oxygen cannot create oxygen, nor 
hydrogen create hj^drogen, nor can either by itself 
produce anything else. Water is neither one gas 
nor the other, but a creation based upon both. One 
drop of water does not generate another drop ; but 
each drop is an original, and as to other drops, is an 
underived creation. The matter of the universe is an 
ever-continuing creation : its redistribution an ever- 
active causative phenomena : the life of the universe is 
an ever-continuing derivative generation. Therefore, 
as mind and matter are most unlike, if one is from 
the other, each is an original creation, and not as a 
derivative propagation: just as the spider creates 
but does not generate from itself its own web. Every 
new web is a new creation, and not a hereditary gen- 
eration. • 

As that which does anything must know how to 
do what it does, universal mind must be the universal 
Factor, and all else are its facts. Science is limited 



Tkmgs that do not Start cannot go on. 139 

to these facts ; theology includes the facts, and by 
these goes on to a knowledge of their personal 
Factor. 

If all things are manifestations of a Power that 
transcends our knowledge, it is important to know 
how much manifestation covers. The manifestation' 
of Power cannot be co-eternal with Power. But the 
relation and the propagation of things are manifesta- 
tions of Power. Things began in some way ; unless 
it be true, as Mr. Spencer says, that " the affirmation 
of universal evolution is in itself a negation of the 
absolute commencement of anything." But, we shall 
see, if there never was an absolute commencement of 
anything, that it was because everything is to be re- 
garded as possibly eternal in eternal Power. 

But if eternal Power could evolve things, whether 
eternal or not eternal, why could it not create things, 
cause things or propagate things? If Power could 
evolve a rattlesnake, why could not Power create 
one? Impersonal Pantheism is as incomprehensible 
as impersonal creationism or impersonal evolution. 
Unlimited Power is unlimited Power. Creation is a 
limited act of unlimited Power; and admitting un- 
limited Power, evolution is as incomprehensible as 
creation. 

This confounds Phenomena with Noumenon ; for, 
though Noumenon never was but always is, yet, to 
say that there is no absolute commencement of any- 
thing, is to say that Phenomena are ever going on 
without having ever started, for things do go on ; 
but as no Phenomena can go on that has not started ; 
and as, according to Mr. Spencer, nothing has ever 



140 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

started, so nothing is going on ; that is, as organic 
nature never had an absolute commencement, it can 
have no actual continuation ; which is absurd. 

If there is anything new evolved in the universe, it 
has been creatively evolved. But, as materialistic 
evolutionists deny *^ the absolute commencement of 
anything," they deny the creative evolution of any- 
thing new. With them the new is essentially a phase 
of the old. Therefore, in such an eternal evolution, 
the old, as an eternal birth, is forever coming out of 
itself ; but, in what is here called creative evolution, 
the new, as an eternal begetting, is forever coming 
out of Power. As the old is ever a genetic evolution, 
so the new is ever a creative evolution. 

Power manifests all things ; but does this Power 
manifest old things or new things? If manifested 
things are new, then Power is manifested either by 
the production of something out of nothing, or by 
the emanation of itself from itself ; and one is as in- 
comprehensible as the other. The Pleroma of the 
Buddhists emanates itself as things and re-absorbs 
itself as things. This is evolution. Buddhism teaches 
the fullness of Being, intelligent and impersonal ; 
evolution teaches the fullness of Power, unintelligent 
and impersonal. Both are agnostic. The method 
of emanation is one and the same of all impersonal 
manifestations, whether of intelligent Being, as Budd- 
hism, or of unintelligent Power, as in agnostic evo- 
lution. 

But, if evolution is the integration of matter, whence 
came matter to be integrated? And how can the 
integration of matter create anything without life, as 



The Inorganic is Created. 141 



the inorganic, and especially of anything with life, as 
the organic ? Is the integration of impersonal matter 
vitalizing and personalizing? Mr. S. admits that 
" the connection between the phenomenal order and 
the ontological order is forever inscrutable " (F. P., 
§ 194). '* So is the connection between the condi- 
tioned forms of being and the unconditioned forms 
of being forever inscrutable." And, yet, Mr. Spencer 
attempts to evolve an evolution of life. Evolution 
will do well enough when we get something to be 
evolved. But we shall continue to inquire whence 
came matter, and whence came the Power to inte- 
grate matter? How was the inertia of matter over- 
come, and when overcome, whence came the power 
to dissipate the motion, and restore inertia ? 

We are told that universal, immanent force inte- 
grates matter ; but we again ask, whence is the force 
and whence is the matter? Mr. S. speaks of this 
force as Inscrutable Cause. If we understand Mr. 
Spencer, the universe is a manifestation of an im- 
manent force. But in what was the force immanent 
before it manifested the universe in which to be 
immanent? Did the .child manifest its own mother? 

Power, supernatural and personal, without what 
may be called method, is directly creative when out 
of unity is produced plurality or out of uniformity is 
produced multiformity, or out of sameness is pro- 
duced difference. 

The inorganic is created, not evolved ; for the evolved 
is eternal if at all ; for, if Power manifests the inor- 
ganic, then the inorganic, as a manifestation, was not 
always, and so is not eternal. But if our argu- 



142 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

ment has proved one supernatural, personal Power, 
unlimited in time and space, of course, all that is 
multiform, natural and limited must be its personal 
or its impersonal manifestations in time and space. 
All the manifestations of Power unlimited in time 
and space must be limited by Power in time and 
space ; and that which is limited in time and space is 
not eternal, and that which is not eternal is not in- 
finite, and that which is not infinite is finite. 

As the organic and inorganic are manifestations, 
they are that which Power is not ; and it is surpris- 
ing that in a philosophy of First Principles Mr. 
Spencer passes over the evolution of the inorganic 
without discussion. If evolution is only the integra- 
tion of matter, then there is no evolution of the or- 
ganic. Organic evolution is a method of life within 
the inorganic. If organic nature finds its factor in 
life, or, if life finds its factor in organic nature in 
what does inorganic nature find its factor? Mate- 
rialists assume the facts of nature and do not attempt 
to find a factor. Materialism is a mechanical and not 
a chemical S3^stem of matter. The carbon, oxygen, 
hydrogen and nitrogen in animal bodies may com- 
bine, but they never cease to be those elements. 
Combination does not destroy. Throughout nature, 
nothing ever changes its kind ; nothing can become 
heterogeneous to itself. Combinations may change, 
but not the elements of combinations. Nature works 
over her old materials. Nature is the manifold ex- 
pression of material elements and immaterial Power. 

We must conclude with the materialists, either that 
matter is eternal ; or with the theists, that Power 



All that is New is Created. 143 



created matter out of nothing ; or with the pantheists, 
that Power materialized or transmuted itself into mat- 
ter — that is, that eternal matter is possible in eternal 
Power. If Power is all, then matter is only a mode 
of Power ; if matter is all, then Power is only a mode 
of matter. Is matter and a mode of matter one and 
the same, in which the eternity of one is the eternity 
of the other? 

The whole process of organic evolution is every- 
where attributed by Mr. Spencer to the co-operation 
of the variously conditioned modes of this universal, 
immanent force, internal and. external. That is, 
Power manifests itself. Now, is that manifestation 
of Power what is called creation or generation? 
Creation is something new. If Power is all, it must 
materialize, for there is matter. And is not the ma- 
terialization of itself or the taking of form by Power 
something new, and so a creation ? All admit, as we 
have seen, omnipresent Power. To theistic evolu- 
tionists that Power is a personal Creator ; to atheistic 
or agnostic evolutionists, who deny creation, that 
Power is impersonal, and manifests an impersonal 
evolution. But, if impersonal Power can evolve, 
why can it not create? Is Power unintelligent in 
evolution and intelligent in creation ? Did not the 
Power that continues all things begin all things? To 
prove creation of the inorganic, organic 'evolution 
need not be denied. To prove evolution of organic 
nature, creation of the inorganic need not be denied. 
Creation of inorganic nature and the evolution of 
organic nature do not conflict. They are simply dif- 
ferent stages of the same phenomena. The creation 



44 The Philosophy of the Stipernahtral. 



of the inorganic precedes the creation and the evolu- 
tion of the organic. Those who deny creation seem 
to fear that unless matter be eternal, Power would 
be driven, so to speak, to create somethmg out of 
nothing. But something is not made out of nothing, 
if matter is only a symbol of Power, unless Power is 
nothing. Those evolutionists who cannot say that 
matter is manifested Power, cannot say that it is any- 
thing else; for, it is claimed, that all things are man- 
ifestations of Power. Matter is only a manifestation 
of Power, unless matter is Power. But matter is 
said to be not Power, but only a symbol of Power. 
If a symbol, it is a manifestation, and if a manifesta- 
tion of eternal Power, it is not eternal itself. 

We have said that methods are sometimes creative 
and sometimes genetic. The creative method of 
supernatural Power is denied by Mr. Spencer when 
he says that " the affirmation of universal evolution 
is, in itself, a negation of the absolute commencement 
of anything" (i Biology, 482, Letter X,oN. A, Review). 
That is to say, by theory, all evolutions are eternal- 
all things are evolutions— therefore all things are 
eternal ; which is a reductio ad absurdiun. Assummg 
the major premise, as before, let us rather say, where- 
as all new things are creations— all changes are new 
things— therefore, all changes are creations. Or, as 
all changes are creations— all new things are changes ; 
therefore, all new things are creations. If the new is 
the created, then there is creation when, as the ideal- 
ists say, supernature naturalizes, when the subject 
objectifies, when the mental materializes, when the 
homogeneous heterizes, when the indefinite becomes 



Atoms are Unchangeable. 145 



definite, when the incoherent becomes coherent— in 
short, when there is a new number, a new quality — a 
new quantity, or a new relation. Thus the averment 
of eternal evolution is illogical. But even according- 
to this theory, only Power is eternal. Power had no 
absolute commencement; but all manifestations of 
Power when Power was all, whether creative or 
evolutionary, had a commencement. If manifesta- 
tions of Power had no '' absolute commencement," 
the manifestations of Power must be co-eternal with 
Power— that is, the child is as old as its parent; 
which is impossible. 

An atom (inorganic matter) cannot be integrated 
in itself. Molecules of inorganic matter may be inte- 
grated as motion is dissipated —and molecules of 
inorganic matter may be disintegrated as motion is 
absorbed ; but there can be no evolution of the inor- 
ganic atom itself. One element can never be changed 
into another element ; oxygen can never be changed 
into carbon. Different elements must have a common 
factor or Power, because they cannot be evolved one 
from the other. But as elementary atoms can never 
be other than they are, there can be no transforma- 
tion of the sameness of atoms into an impossible 
difference, of atoms, and so no evolution of atomic 
matter. 

Homogeneity means sameness of kind, and hetero- 
geneity means difference of kind. Solid carbon is 
one kind of element and asriform oxygen is a differ- 
ent kind of element. If carbon is changed from a 
homogeneous state to a heterogeneous state, it must 
still be carbon, and not an element of another kind ; 



10 



46 The Philosophy of the Sttpernatural. 



and so of every other primary element. The solid 
element of carbon cannot be gasified, nor can one 
gaseous element like oxygen be changed into another 
gaseous element like hydrogen. But if one kind \^ 
not transformed into another kind, there can be no- 
evolution. What is meant by evolution is, the trans- 
formation of uniformity of organic phenomena into 
multiformity of organic phenomena, or of unity into 
plurality, as of one grain of wheat into many grains 
of wheat; but this is not a transformation of one 
kind into another kiitd, but a multiplication of the 
same kind. There may be homogeneity of a unit, 
but there can be no heterogeneity of the same unit, 
and so no evolution. The transformation of homo- 
geneity into heterogeneity must be in the same indi- 
vidual; but that does not give transformation of one 
kind into another kind. Evolution, as defined, con- 
sisting of the transformation of the elements, is simply 
impossible. There must be creative lifting of the 
elements. There may be and is change— develop- 
ment — progress of the same organic individual, but 
no change of kind, organic or inorganic, and so no 
evolution of kind. 

Strictly speaking the molecule only can be hetero- 
geneous, and the atom only can be homogeneous, as 
an atom of carbon, or of hydrogen, or of oxygen \ 
but it is a homogeneity that never can be heterogen- 
eous. The atoms we mention can never be other 
than they are. If evolution depends on the transform- 
ation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous^ 
then evolution does not include any of the inorganic 
and primary elements admitted by science. The 



The Unbridged Chasm, i/^y 



relations of these atoms may, indeed, be allotropically 
changed ; but is evolution nothing but a change of 
relation? Is a relation homogeneity, or is relation 
heterogeneity? Is an atom homogeneous to a mole- 
cule, or is a molecule heterogeneous to an atom ? If 
so, homogeneity and heterogeneity is not sameness 

or difference in kindhwt in quantity — in number in 

relation. If then, there can be no evolution when 
there can be no transformation of the homogeneous 
into the heterogeneous, and if there can be no hete- 
rogeneity to the primary homogeneous elements, then 
there can be no evolution, as evolution is defined, of 
any part of the inorganic world ; and Mr. Spencer 
was wise to pass over it to the evolution of organic 
natures, but it leaves unwritten a large and by far 
the most important part of his philosophy. 

In passing over the application of his First Princi- 
ples to the evolution of Inorganic Nature, Mr. Spen- 
cer leaves an unbridged chasm between evolutionary 
Power and Organic Nature, which, we must suppose, 
those First Principles would span, if applied. If all 
manifestation of Power is evolution, then, as we 
have just said, the method of evolution is creative in 
Inorganic JS'ature, and genetic in Organic Nature ; 
for the methods of manifestation must differ as the 
manifested natures differ. 

This supernatural method appears to be uniform 
in "the Constitution of things," where its grasp is 
only on what is said to be blind, impersonal, uncon- 
scious, inert, matter. The eternity of uncreated and 
and uncreating matter and force is as incomprehensi- 
ble as the eternity of an uncreated and all-creating 



148 The Philosophy of the Supernahcral. 

God. Is mind the product of matter, or is matter 
the product of mind? Matter, as some think of it, 
cannot answer the question. Gain is a fact, and in 
that fact is a law of nature, to hold all gains. Now, 
mind made matter, and not matter mind ; because, if 
mind materialized, it took on original form, or 
length, breadth and thickness, and this was a gain in 
the universe ; but if matter mentalized, it dropped 
length, breadth and thickness, and this would have 
been a loss in the universe, and so an impossibility. 
Matter knows nothing of its own essence, origin or 
history, any more than the paper knows the origin of 
the poem or history written on its surface. But, if 
matter has existed from all eternity, has nothing but 
such matter so existed ? The eternity of matter does 
not disprove the mind of God. As mind is no 
less real than matter, if matter only be real and eter- 
nal, then matter is mind unto itself. But matter 
does not know itself to be mind, nor does mind know 
itself to be matter. Matter cannot be said to be 
until it is known to be ; but matter cannot be known 
to be until there is mind to know it. Rather, when 
matter was known to be there was mind to know it. 
In other words, matter is altogether unknown unless 
known to mind. As mind knows nothing older than 
itself, matter is not known to be older than mind. 

If matter is eternally all, and being is not eternal, 
how is it that there are beings at all ? It is a law^ 
that like produces like, but what is there alike in 
matter and being, that matter should beget being ? 
If matter might propagate matter, how can matter 
propagate mind ? If matter is the mother, and mind 



What is Matter ? 1 4^ 



IS the child, it is indeed a strange, unnatural moment 
when the child openes its conscious eyes upon the 
form of its unconscious mother. Can mind be the 
chance product of matter? If mind be the product 
of chance, then what is by design? Can unintelli- 
gent chance produce a designing thing ? Does matter 
work by design or by chance ? If it work by chance, 
It produces designing mind ; if it work by design^ 
then is it not God ? But if being be eternally all[ 
and matter is not eternal, then what is that which we 
call matter? Is it Being materialized? Is matter 
only an idea ? We must think of being as a mode of 
matter, or of matter as a mode or as a creation of 
bemg. Both exist. How did omniscience get that 
control of matter which it now has? Did matter 
create or evolve mind as its own master, and did it 
m mind, dig its own grave ? Did matter surrender 
or delegate to mind, its own child, the control of its 
movements ? 

We do not know what matter is, nor what absolute 
being is ; nor whether being can become matter, or 
matter can become being. The Scriptures teach 
that - m the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth ; " but whether creation means that Abso- 
lute Being originated matter, or that he materializes 
and manifests something of himself as matter, no hu- 
man mind can know. How far is the creator iden- 
tical with his creation ? Is the web a part of the 
spider ? Does heredity make parent and child one ? 
Can God make himself something that he is not? If 
not, must not that which we call matter be really a 
metamorphosis of the Being-another name for a 



T50 The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 



manifestation— God himself? As God cannot sepa- 
rate or divide himself into parts, it would seem, to 
short-sighted mortals, that all is God, and God is all. 
Who can deny a personal and creative pantheism ? 
We can neither affirm nor deny that God may be- 
come what we call matter, for we know not what 
God may choose to do with himself. To God that 
is a God, nothing is impossible. Are we individual- 
ities of God? Can a conscious Being so abdicate 
himself as to become an unconscious thing ? It is 
more probable that God should convert himself into 
a serpent, than that lie should create a serpent? Is 
not metamorphosis as incomprehensible as creation ? 
Indeed, how do metamorphosis and creation differ? 
But Absolute Being, creation, matter, are all alike 
incomprehensible. 

So far as our minds can grasp and state their rela- 
tions, we may say, that, in the necessary unity of all 
things, this Absolute Being manifested himself both 
in unconscious things and in conscious persons, the 
highest personality being Christ. When his will is 
creatively manifested in, if not as substance, it is 
known as matter: when as chemic force that will 
combines this matter, or when as mechanical force, it 
moves, or as vital force it organizes this matter, it is 
known as cause or force. When the Absolute Being 
manages this matter in a way that seems special to 
us, we think of him as a worker of miracles. When 
he manifests himself as a conscious person, we call 
him the Father of man {^' for in him we live, move, 
and have our being"). When he addresses himself 
to man as an intelligent, moral, and therefore account- 



What is the Anima Mundi? 151 



able being, his will is known as moral law. Paul 
says that there are diversities of gifts, but the same 
Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, 
but the same Lord. And there are diversities of 
•operations, but there is the same God, which worketh 
all in all. All is a something from, if not of, God's 
personality. So that, to get God out of religion, you 
must first get him out of nature, by getting rid of 
matter, and by getting rid of his creative energies 
included in the idea of cause, known as force, law, 
life ; for these are manifestations of Absolute Being, 
•or facts of his intelligence and power— modes or out- 
comes of his personality. 

We hold that, as God is spirit, we cannot think of 
matter as God ; and yet we cannot think of anything 
as apart from God. His infinity and omnipresence 
would seem to displace matter, if spirit can be said 
to displace substance. The difference between this 
doctrine of omnipresent and omniscient personal will, 
efficient rather than immanent, and the ancient notion 
of anima nmndi, or soul of the world, and Shopen- 
hauer's impersonal, unintelligent, blind Will, is just 
the difference between God and no God. Does God 
create the matter-forces and then retire and leave 
them to go on without him, or is He personally those 
forces themselves? No mortal can tell which. Can 
we not say that we see the efficient worker immanent 
in the effected work ? St. Paul says, '' God worketh 
all in all." But " God is a spirit, and we must wor- 
ship him in spirit and in truth." Science must be 
silent when faith distinguishes between God and 
matter. God may incarnate himself, but if God ma- 



152 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

terializes himself^ he forbids us to worship the divine 
materialization. We must honor matter, not knowing 

r 

how divine it may be. We may all say to each other, 
as the Angel said to Moses at the Burning Bush, 
*' Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place 
whereon thou standest is holy ground." Nor was 
Prof. Tyndall so very profane when he said that 
"■ matter had the promise and potency of every form 
and quality of life." 

Taking the eternity of God as a h^'pothetical stand- 
point of thought, there is seen to be from Him an ever- 
increasing materialized emergence— God's thought 
beaming visible. We cannot deny that there is a 
God by making matter everything ; for that which is 
matter to you is Absolute Being to Spencer, Will \.o 
Wallace, Mind to Carpenter, Pure Principal to You- 
mans, Power to Fiske, Spirit to Paul, and God to the 
Angels. Matter is a form of spirit. The visible side 
of matter is next to man, and the invisible side next 
to all above man. Still, whatever God may be to 
his matter, or whatever matter may be to its God, to 
us mind is not matter, nor is matter mind. We can- 
not deny the duality, but in the perspective of thought, 
God is the unit of both. He is the centre of that 
life which permeates the universe. We can think of 
eternal Being or existence, but we cannot think of 
an eternal thing or of an eternal manifestation. Did 
matter make mind, or did mind make matter? All- 
knowing mind, to be all-knowing mind, knows how 
to manifest itself as matter, and still remain mind ;, 
but matter as matter does not know how to become 
mind, and still remain matter, for it does not know 



What is the Outside of Nature? 153 



anything-. In the manifestation of mind as matter, it 
need not drop its intelligence, but only add to itself 
form and continue to be mind ; but in the transform- 
ation of matter into mind; it drops its essence of 
form— length, breadth and thickness— and so ceases to 
be matter. But unless both matter and mind exist 
eternally, one must make the other. In that case, 
mind must be the Factor and matter the fact ; for, if 
we suppose that mind, knowing everything-, knew 
how to materialize itself and become visible in form, 
or to create matter when there was nothing-; and 
that matter, knowing- nothing, knew not how to men- 
talize itself, or to create mind out of itself, we must 
conclude that mind, which knew everything, made 
matter; and that matter which did not know how to 
make anything, did not make mind. 

But no one, apart from revelation, knows anything 
of the origin of either matter or mind. Both have 
been of old. " As we prolong the vision backward 
across the boundary of experimental evidence," 
knovyledge is lost in speculation, and speculation is 
lost in the impenetrable darkness of the eternal mys- 
tery. Science may ascribe properties to matter, but 
science cannot know how, or whence, or what matter 
is. That inquiry belongs to philosophy and religion. 
Religion leaves to science the vain effort to solve the 
insoluble question as to what matter is, and what 
nature is ; but religion w^orships, by the intuitions of 
faith, and the conclusions of logic, the supernatural 
Power as God above and outside of nature. We 
use the word God as the verbal symbol of superhu- 
man Power, supernatural Mind, supernatural Will. 



154 ^-^^ Philosophy of the Supernatural, 

" All visible things," says Carlyle, "" are emblems ; 
what thou see'st is not there on their own account. 
Matter exists only spiritually, and to represent some 
idea, and body it forth." 

So far as we know there is no matter apart from 
intelligence. Both mind and matter exist. Which 
is fact and which is Factor? If human mind is a 
fact, it must have a superhuman Factor. If intelli- 
gent nature be denied, unintelligent nature cannot be 
affirmed ; for unintelligent nature cannot take intelli- 
gent knowledge of its own unintelligence — it can- 
not know that it does not know — mindless nature 
cannot know that it is mindless. And not only must 
there be intelligence, but there must be consciousness 
of that intelligence ; for unconscious nature cannot 
be conscious that it is unconscious. 

*' These speculations," says Wallace, " are usually 
held to be far beyond the bounds of science ; but they 
appear to me to be more legitimate deductions from 
the facts of science, than those which consist in re- 
ducing the whole universe, not merely to matter, but 
to matter conceived and defined so as to be philo- 
sophically inconceivable. It is surely a great step in 
advance, to get rid of the notion that matter is a thing 
of itself, which can exist per se, and must have been 
eternal, since it is supposed to be indestructible and 
uncreated — that force, or the forces of nature, are 
another thing, given or added to matter, or else its 
necessary properties — and that mind is another thing, 
either a product of this matter and its supposed 
inherent forces, or distinct from and co-existent with 
it ;— and to be able to substitute for this complicated 



Mind-Force. 155 



theory, which leads to endless dilemmas and contra- 
dictions, the far simpler and more consistent belief, 
that matter, as an entity distinct from force, does not 
exist ; and that Force is a product of Mind. Philos- 
ophy had long- demonstrated our incapacity to prove 
the existence of matter, as usuall}^ conceived ; while 
it admitted the demonstration to each of us of our 
own self-conscious, ideal existence. Science has now 
worked its way up to the same result, and this agree- 
ment between them should give us some confidence 
in their combined teaching. 

" The view we have now arrived at seems to me 
more grand and sublime, as well as far simpler, than 
any other. It exhibits the universe, as a universe of 
intelligence and will-power; and by enabling us to rid 
ourselves of the impossibility of thinking of mind, 
but as connected with our old notions of matter, opens 
up infinite possibilities of existence, connected with 
infinitely varied manifestations of force, totally dis 
tinct from, yet as real as, what we term matter. 

The grand law of continuity which we see pervad- 
ing our universe, would lead us to infer infinite gra- 
dations of existence, and to people all space with 
intelligence and will-power ; and, if so, we have no 
difficulty in believing, that for so noble a purpose as 
the progressive development of higher and higher 
intelligences, those primal and general will-forces, 
which have sufficed for the production of the lower 
animals, should have been guided into new channels 
and made to converge in definite directions." (Wal- 
lace on Natural Selections, p. 369-70.) 

We speak of matter and we speak of Being. Are 



156 The Philosophy of the Stipernatural. 

they the same or not the same ? Has matter intelli- 
gence, will, power, and personality ? It is the opin- 
ion of some, that matter is all, and God or being is 
not ; that God is omnipresent personality. If matter 
is all God, all God is not matter. The whole subject 
is incomprehensible. One has no more valid reason 
for saying that the universe is material, than another 
has for saying that it is spiritual. The scriptures 
teach that God created all things by the word of his 
power. If matter be eternal, it is eternal either in 
itself or in some eternal existence not known as mat- 
ter. If eternal in itself, it is what we call God ; if 
eternal in some existence not known as matter, it i& 
not eternal as matter. If eternal in God, then crea- 
tion is not the coming of something out of nothing,. 
but it is the transformation of being into form ; or, as 
Sir William Hamilton puts it, " all that there is now 
of existence in the universe, we conceive as having 
virtually existed prior to creation, in the creator." 

In that sense, matter would be the manifestation or 
mode of Absolute Being ; it would be materialized 
will-power ; the visible fact of an invisible Factor ; 
the intangible made tangible ; the abstract made 
concrete — the subjective made objective ; spirit man- 
ifested as substance. If matter be not eternal, it has 
been created by an eternal creator, either when there 
was nothing or out of himself, as the spider converts 
somewhat of himself into web. But as we cannot 
conceive of nothing, matter must be a form or mani- 
festation of being ; and its eternity, if eternal at all, is 
the eternity of being materialized in time. Matter, 
as a manifestation of eternal being, is not eternal. 



The First Atom, j r ^ 



Matter is the autograph of God. As time is but a 
segment of eternity; as the age of an undivided 
whole IS the age of each undivided part, so creation 
has its place in the history of the eternal. Creation 
was but an echo of existence— existence includes all 
changes. To God, creation as a purpose, has no 
chronology. 

But matter is not eterfial, if it is under the control of 
mind; for the eternal is uncontrolled. If to crook one's 
finger shows that some matter is under the control of 
human will, a fortiori, why is not all matter under 
the control of superhuman will ? 

If matter, and matter only, be eternal, how explain 
the mystery of development ? Matter is as powerless 
to change itself, as it is to create itself. If changed 
Its conditions must be changed ; but who is to change 
Its conditions 1 It is as impotent or inert to change 
Its conditions, as it is to change itself without change 
of conditions. The seed in the ground needs out- 
side building from the soil and the sun. Whence the 
secret of the Protean changes of matter, especially 
up to life and intelligence 1 

2. The first organism, or organic nat^ire. We have 
said that the creative method is a way or method of 
newness ; and, that in inorganic nature it was seen in 
the first atom. We shall now see, that in organic 
nature, this method of newness was seen in the first 
vrgamsm.. The first organism! whence was iO 
The same Power that manifested matter—the first 
inorganic atom-withOut life, then manifested matter 
with hfe. Mr. Spencer having declined to discuss 
in evolution, the origin of the first atom in in' 



1 58 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



organic nature, is at once confronted with as great 
a mystery as to the origin of the first organism 
in organic nature. Mr. Spencer denies both a first 
atom and a first organism. ''The conception of 
a first organism, in anything like the current sense of 
the words, is wholly at variance with the conception 
of evolution." " The absolute commencement of or- 
ganic life on the globe * * * I distinctly deny " 

(lb.). 

But, if both matter and life are neither eternal nor 
created, then that unlimited Power which all admit, 
must ever be objectifying itself in the symbols called 
matter, for there is matter, or what Mr. S. calls the 
symbols or the conceptions of matter. But Mr. S. 
cannot escape holding either the eternity of matter, 
of materialism, or the creation of matter by Power; 
for, when Power was all, there was no matter and no 
symbol of matter. When Power broke up its infinite 
and eternal individuality and solitude, and manifested 
the form and substance of an atom or of the symbol 
of an atom, then creation began. The first atom or 
the first symbol of an atom was new and a creation. 
If Power took form, then form was the form of 
Power. The presence of form was the presence of 
Power. But this manifestation of Power in form was 
something new for Power, and Power out of itself 
manifested or projected a form of itself— a symbol- 
called matter. 

If there be any validity to these speculations, they 
prove the universal, continuous creations by Power- 
that every activity or manifestation of Power is a 
creation ; for Power only is uncreated. Every mani- 



The First Organism. i^q 



festation of Power is something that Power was not 
before the manifestation. As that which is uncreated 
IS that which has always been, so the created is that 
which has not always been. Form— symbol-matter 
—once was not, for once Power was all. The moment 
of creation was the moment that Power manifested 
that which Power as Power was not. 

In the first organism is the first life in nature 
Whence came that life ? Was natural life inherited 
from supernatural life, or was it derived from a 
supernatural antecedent without life ? In inorganic 
nature, there is no inheritance— all is unsuspended 
creation. But throughout organic nature, like inherits 
from like. But species never mix with species. Cre- 
ative power manifests dissimilarity in its creations. 
Power is as unlike its facts as the mould is unlike its 
bullets. All chemical changes are creative because 
the effects are entirely dissimilar from the causes. 
Heat is unlike the electricity that follows it; the 
stone dropped into the water is entirely dissimilar 
from the wave it raises ; light is entirely dissimilar 
from the shadow it casts. Creative power as causa- 
tive power lies between the cause and the effect 
making the cause produce that which the cause in 
Itself could not be. But the genetic power produces 
similarities, and continuously transfers itself from 
like to like, as from seed to fruit, and from fruit to 
seed. The supernatural power of life is the natural 
fact of life- in other words, the creative power of 
life in supernature, is the genetic power of life in 
nature. We know that life is, but we do not know 
what It IS. If life lineally descends in nature as we 



1 60 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



see it does, why should it not lineally descend frotn 
supernature? We can no more see its end in the 
future than we can see its beginning in the past. 
Without life there is no consciousness ; and in the 
proof that human consciousness is from superhuman 
consciousness, is the higher proof that human life is 
from superhuman life. 

The great, fundamental law of evolution in the 
correlative integration of matter and the concommit- 
ant dissipation of motion, has produced no such 
result as life; and the almost unanimous voice of 
scientific learning is, that this correlation between 
integrating matter and dissipating motion can pro- 
duce no such result. The Power of life is as much 
ab extra as the Power of motion (104 Psy. 29). The 
Power of motion may be in inert matter, but not of 
it. But, it is at this point of nature that Mr. Spencer 
takes up evolution. He expressly says, as seen, that 
he passes over inorganic nature as less important, 
and takes up the evolution of organic nature as more 
important. But at this arbitrary skip of science, by 
which he cuts the phenomena of nature in twain, and 
accounts for nothing, but describes a few facts of 
matter, the student of nature must enter an emphatic 
protest. Evolution must go back, and account for 
the beginning of the matter of inorganic nature, 
which is integrated. We think of the first dead 
form and the first living form, as a commencement 
of nature, inorganic or organic; but Mr. Spencer 
tells us that " the affirmation of universal evolution 
is, in itself, the negation of the absolute commence- 
ment of anything." And, yet, 'universal evolution' 



All Power is Identical 1 6 1 



gives us no account of the first atom or of the first 
organism. To say that matter, atomized or unatom- 
ized, is eternal is what is called materialism ; but, the 
matter-system of Lucretius must be denied, if the 
Power-system of Spencer be affirmed. If ' matter 
could be proved to be eternal, it could not be proved 
to be infinite, unless space is matter; and so finite 
matter could not be eternal and infinite in infinite 
Power. Evolution teaches that matter integrates ; but 
it does not account for the matter or for the Power 
that integrates it. 

All manifesting Power whether creative or genetic, 
is the same. The same supernatural Power that 
manifested the inorganic atom and the organic acorn, 
organizes itself in the acorn to take care of and 
propagate it. The lifting of the inorganic up into 
the organic, proves the identity of the Power mani- 
festing both. The organic is the inorganic plus life 
and function. The organizing of the inorganic into 
the organic, is a creation of the organic upon the 
antecedent creation of the inorganic. 

It is true, that in organic nature— in the transform- 
ation of the incoherent into the coherent, and of the 
indefinite into the definite, matter passes from a dif- 
fused to an aggregate state; and the definition of 
evolution as an integration of matter and concomi- 
tant dissipation of motion so far technically applies 
if anywhere ; but we feel disappointed that evolution 
Ignores the origin of the first atom, or assumes it, 
and the origin of the first organism, or assumes it, in 
which theistic philosophy finds its deepest interest. 
-Leave to the world its God, and the minds of men 



II 



1 62 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

may speculate ad nauseam, as to how He has done what 
He has done. Inorganic nature being given, all else 
is a study of mere method of Power, personal or im- 
personal. But here is the battle religion has to fight. 
Power unlimited in Time and Space is conceded by 
agnostics ; the manifestation of inorganic matter is 
not denied or discussed, but the question is, is that 
Power intelligent and personal or unintelligent and 
impersonal? We claim to here show that it is intel- 
ligent and personal. If this claim be valid, we 
have only to study the methods of an intelligent and 
personal Power, creative in inorganic nature, and 
creatively genetic in organic nature. The genetic 
method is a method of creative Power— or, rather, 
the genetic method is a part of the creative method. 
The first atom, and all the atoms of inorganic 
nature, and the first organism of all organic nature, 
are direct creations, because they are new in the uni- 
verse ; while the second organism of organic nature, 
according to its kind, inherited creation from the 
first through indirect or genetic creation. They were 
not created as being new, nor were they eternal as 
being old ; but being sui generis, they inherit creative 

power. 

The method in organic nature is genetic, as that in 
inorganic nature is creative. 

Unlimited Power creatively manifested not only 
inorganic matter or matter without liie, but also or- 
ganic matter or matter with life with power to re- 
produce or transmit both matter and life. Leaving 
to the zoologist and the botanist the technical learn- 
ing on this point, we simply present the fact of su- 



The Definition of Evolution is too Narrow. 1 63 

pernatural Power as factor in the phenomena of 
transmitted life and function. Mr. Spencer speaks of 
it as a ''process of natural genesis" (i Biol., § 113). 
The genetic method is a supernaturally natural way 
of transmission—of reproduction of individuals from 
individuals. As the first grain of wheat illustrates 
the creative method, the second grain from the' first 
illustrates the genetic method of universal Power. 
The genetic method of organic matter is based upon 
the creative method of inorganic matter. The first 
thing, whether inorganic or organic, was created ; 
that is, omnific Power took a form and substance 
that Power is not. The production of one seed by 
another seems to deify the reproductive power. In 
the ancestral worship of the Aryan races, the genetic 
power was deiiied. The Power manifested in a tree 
IS the arborescence of supernatural Power, as that of 
animal life is its incarnation. The Power that is 
called creative when it originates anything, is called 
genetic when it propagates what it had originated. 

The definition of evolution is not only too narrow 
as an account of organic or genetic nature, but it is 
wholly inapplicable to it. What connection can there 
be between the integration of matter, the correlative 
dissipation of motion, and the genesis of life and 
function ? The definition is forced to sustain a theory 
The organic is the inorganic, //^.y life and function. 
The evolution of life has never been shown, and much 
more, the evolution of function from life has never 
been shown. The Power that manifested the atom, 
the molecule and the mass, either from within itself 
or from without itself, then correlated matter and 



164 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

motion, now by wedging matter apart and now by 
compressing matter together, — that same Power now 
adds life to its manifestation of inorganic nature, and 
lifts it into an entirely new order of nature. Even if 
it could be shown (as it has not), that the coming and 
the going of motion and the concentration and dif- 
fusion of matter, through the transformation of the 
homogeneous into the heterogeneous, and the change 
of incoherency to coherency, and the indefinite into 
the definite, had been the method of Power in the 
manifestation first of life and then of function ; still, 
the personal, intelligent Power that manifested itself 
down this line of phenomena was not disproved b}^ 
such manifestations. After all, behind nature stands 
the Power that manifested both inorganic and organic 

nature. 

Science admits a Power unlimited in time and 
space, but assumes its impersonality. Science treats 
evolution as a process of impersonal law, and em- 
phatically ignores it as a method of personal Will. 
Religion treats evolution as a method of personal 
Will, and emphatically ignores it as a process of 
merely impersonal law. Materialistic science teaches 
that impersonal law is primarily all; while religion 
teaches that, primarily, personal Will is all. 
" Method, as a way of Power, is either free as super- 
natural Power, in creation and providence without 
the method of means ; or, as supernatural Power, it 
is fixed in evolution and correlation, as a method of 
means. That is to say, supernatural Power both cre- 
ates without law, other than its own intelligent Will ; 
or, it evolves, with law, as an expression of that Will. 



The Unity of Life. 165 



Atheistical science affirms the Jaw, but denies the 
mtelhgent Will. Religion affirms the Will, and also 
law as Its intelligent expression. Will prescribes its 
own methods. The dissimilarity of products in cre- 
ative manifestations and the similarity of products in 
genetic manifestations are because supreme Will so 
wills It. In ourselves we see that will is the executive 
faculty supreme in each individual ; and in all phe 
nomena and life out of ourselves, we cannot suppose 
that the power of will is less. Each tiny seed, in its 
genetic life, embodies the creative Power of God 
Its life is persistent, though possibly dormant through 
centuries. It never forgets its species. No time can 
make the seed of wheat produce the tare, or the 
acorn produce anything but an oak. Nor does the 
seed ever forget that it must produce a stalk before it 
can produce another seed. Between the producing 
acorn and the acorn produced there must be the 
arborescent life of the grand oak. Unbroken life 
alone can multiply fish, or bird, or beast, or man. 

As stars that shine by single sun. 
So life in each is life from one. 

No wonder that devout imaginations have seen in 
living nature the grand metamorphosis of God All 
living trees, shrubs, birds and insects seem to have 
an intelligence, a life and a power not their own 
1 he very ground on which our feet stand seems to 
be holy ground. Creative power is underived • gen 
etic power is derived from the underived creative 
power. Creation is the fountain, and generation is 
the issuing stream. Generation is onlv delegated 
creation; in other words, creative power confers 



66 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



genetic power. Whatever started nature is creative, 
whatever carries it on is genetic. This evolutionary 
Power, immanent in the universe, must be both ex- 
trinsic and creative to lift the homogeneous into the 
heterogeneous ; and intrinsic and genetic, to continue 
like on into like. But if it is unintelligent, how does it 
decide, when it grasps a lump of matter, whether it 
shall evolve into a rock or into a rose ? Or is this 
differentiation altogether a matter of accident ? 



LECTURE IV. 



METHOD OF EVOLUTION. 

The old question, How are we to account for all 

things? is answered in these days by the old theory 

of development, under the new name of Evolution. 

We must decide whether the universe is here as the 

creation of a Creator, or as the uncreated phenomena 

of evolution. If we say that the universe is evolved 

without a Creator, the question arises, Who evolves 

evolution ? If evolution is the derivation of one 

thing from another, then cabbages are derived from 

cabbages, and birds from birds, and man from man. 

But as there must have been a first cabbage, a first 

bird, a first man, we see that there was original crea- 

tion as well as derivative evolution. Evolution will 

do after things get a start; but how did they get a 

start ? 

The theory of evolution has been before the world 
for more than a quarter of a century, and it is dif- 
ficult to see in it any practical value whatever. 
No man can manage a bank, sell merchandise, con- 
duct a war, or do anything else by evolution or by 
knowing what it is. Evolution is a speculation 
about a method; not a rule of practice: It is for 
speculative philosophers; not for business men. 



68 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



There has been an immense deal of talk about evolu- 
tion; but the vast majority of people are without the 
slightest knowledge of what it is all about ; and all 
who think they know what evolution is, go on wath 
the duties and interests of life all the same. Its only 
importance is, as it is arbitrarily made to conflict 
with the doctrine of the government of a personal 
God. Every now and then, in the lapse of centuries, 
rises some new theory, vainly attempting to account^ 
without a God, for all things. At one time it is Fate 
or necessity ; at another it is accident or chance ; 
and now it is evolution. Those who deny the relig- 
ious basis of things, think that evolution accounts 
for all things, and nothing more need be said. But 
what is evolution ? Evolution is the homogeneous 
becoming the heterogeneous. But what is that ? It 
is simply sameness becoming difference. Homogen- 
eity and sameness is unity ; heterogeneity is division 
and difference. An oak is homogeneous in its acorn,. 
but heterogeneous in its roots, trunk, branches, twigs, 
leaves and fruit. This is evolution ; the homogen- 
eous becomes the heterogeneous ; the indefinite be- 
comes the definite; the incoherent becomes the 
coherent ; the aggregate becomes the segregate. The 
evolution of nature has just changed the vesture of 
our hemisphere. In the process of foliation it is seen 
from hour to hour. On the naked stem comes a bud, 
then a bud gradually bursts into a number of differ- 
ent leaves. There is a beautiful and mysterious 
progress, and beautiful and mysterious difference. 
This is evolution. It is a method of power. But 
what is that power? Here the conflict between 



New Names to Old Ideas. \ 69 



evolution and religion distinctly comes in, if it comes 
at all. By what power does the homogeneous bud 
expand into the heterogeneous leaves ? The evolu- 
tion itself is seen and undisputed. All that science 
has done is to give a new name to an old method of 
Power ; but it neither names nor explains the power. 
Is the Power, the power of a Person, or the power 
of Things? Power in action is evolution— in other 
words, underived power acts in a self-prescribed 
method, which science calls evolution. That is all 
there is of it. We are no more advanced in the 
knowledge of the Power at the origin of things than 
we were before. Admitting evolution, we know the 
method, but not the origin of things. As to this 
origin, we are exactly where we were before, and 
where we always shall be. 

But, Ave repeat, evolution is only a new name for 
an old idea. What is now called evolution was, a 
few years ago, called development. But there are 
those who think that because the name is new the 
thing is new. The only difference in the use, though 
there is none in the meaning, of the two words is, 
development was admitted to be the method of per- 
sonal power, while evolution persistently seeks to 
force itself upon intelligent acceptance as the method 
of impersonal power. One is theism, the other is 
atheism. All admit that evolution is only a method 
or a process; but whether it is one or the other, 
the whole controversy lies in the old question, 
whether the power behind evolution is that of a God 
or of no God, whether it is personal or impersonal. 
Now, the first knowledge we get of power is in 



1 70 The Philosophy of the SMpei^nahtral. 

our persons, and that of other persons. All fears, 
whether of children or of men, is of the power of 
beings, not of things. Things and forces and ele- 
ments were feared only as they represented personal 
power. If the power is not personal, then there is 
no religious morality, no right and no wrong ; and 
persons are only a higher order of things without 
moral duties or moral responsibilities. An imper- 
sonal thing or things can give no moral commands 
to personal beings. A tree or a stone cannot impose 
duties on a Newton or on an Isaiah. The underived 
is God; if human beings are underived, then they 
are gods ; if they are derived, they must take the law 
of their conduct and place from the underived ; but 
the Underived, as a lawgiver, must be personal, not 
impersonal, for we are persons. All our ideas woven 
into the fibre of knowledge ascribe personality to a 
lawgiver. An impersonal lawgiver is utterly unthink- 
able ; so that we must either give up the idea and 
name of Law, or admit the existence of a personal 
Lawgiver. To admit this is to admit God ; to admit 
God, makes it unimportant to the ends of religion, 
whether evolution is a method, or not a method of 
God. 

In ourselves, power is found to be Will; and, if 
will is power in us, why is it not power in all above 
us? What should make a difference? Right here 
is tlie rub. If infidelity could disconnect power 
from personal will, it could discard the idea of a 
personal God, and the victory for materialism would 
be won. But this it has not done ; and as long as 
power is in will, and will is in personality, so long su- 



Religion Personalizes Power. 1 7 1 



perhuman power will be superhuman will, and super- 
human will is all that we mean bj God. With God 
at the head of the universe, He may have evolution 
as a method or not as He pleases. If the method of 
evolution covers all that is known of the universe, 
then it is both creative and genetic; it is creative in 
evolving- unlike from unlike as vegetables from min- 
erals. It is genetic in evolving like from like, as 
oaks from oaks or wheat from wheat. If this house 
is an evolution, it is a creative evolution ; for it is not 
the generation of any other house, nor can it gene- 
rate another house. Again, if the vegetables are 
evolutions, they are genetic evolutions ; because they 
descend from other like vegetables. 

But one thing is certain, that whether the method 
be creative or genetic or both, it is only a method. 
Science may deal with the method, while religion 
personalizes and worships the power. If evolution is 
only the method of a personal will, then religion 
does not deny it; but if evolution is claimed to be 
an inevitable out-rolling of things, then religion does 
den}^ it. There is nothing inevitable to God. 

" The other week," says the London Guardian, 
*' there was a meeting held in honor of the tercen- 
tenar}^ of the foundation of the University. There 
was brought together a galaxy of talent such as has 
not been witnessed anywhere in modern times.- To 
the Scottish capital, and to do honor to one of the 
grandest seats of learning in the world, science, art, 
literature, statesmanship had sent their leading rep- 
resentatives. Much interest was centered in the 
students' meeting. Here the excitement was brought 



I 72 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



up almost to a white heat by the addresses of Minis- 
ter Lowell, of Count Sacifi, of Helmholtz, of Lavel- 
eye, of Pasteur and of Virchow. It was something 
to see these great masters. It was more to hear 
them speak. Virchow was the chief attraction. 
Helmholtz uttered a word of warning against what 
he called False Rationalism in science ; Laveleve re- 
minded the students that their first duty was to seek 
the kingdom of God, but Virchow surprised, aston- 
ished and produced a perfect furor of excitement 
when he proclaimed with emphasis that evolution 
had no scientific basis. The Darwinian theory, he 
said, might be true ; but what he demanded was proof, 
not hypothesis. Such testimony from the great- 
est anatomist, the greatest master of natural science 
now living, it was felt was a real triumph for religion. 
The general conviction produced by Virchow's utter- 
ance is, that the tide has turned against infidelity." 

What is a scientific basis? Material science inves- 
tigates material phenomena. Its* eye is ever upon 
inert, lifeless forms. When the phenomena of life 
appears, then begins an inquiry which utterly baffles 
science. No scale of science has ever weighed life ; 
no microscope of science has ever seen life ; no cru- 
cible of science has ever fused life; no alembic of 
science has ever distilled life. No scientist has ever 
explained life. The reason that the distinguished 
Virchow announced that evolution had no scientific 
basis, lies in the truth, that evolution is a method of 
facts, but not the power of the facts themselves. 
Science deals with facts, and facts only. What 
power does, belongs to science ; what power is, belongs 



Science is for Facts, not for the Factor, i ^x 



to philosophy and theology. Anything beyond facts 
is metaphysical, and not scientific. Science may 
study facts, but not the factors. The essence of 
Power is beyond the scope of science, but not beyond 
the studies of philosophy. Rules are for science; 
principles are for philosophy. Thus Virchow was 
critically correct— evolution is the subject of phil- 
osophical speculations, not of scientific facts. Science 
may tell us what power does, but not what power is. 
If evolution is claimed to be a power as well as a 
method, even then there can be no science as to what 
power is, there can be no scientific basis for evolution. 
If evolution has a scientific basis, then it must be 
admitted to be only a method, and not a power, and 
as a mere method of power, it cannot conflict with 
what philosophy and religion reserve as Power. 

What religion wants is to get at foundation truths. 
If science has them not, no material barrier can stop 
the soul from looking behind the barrier. Let evolu- 
tionists explain the power of which evolution is only 
a method, or be silent when religion attempts, how- 
ever tardily and gropingly, to get behind the evo- 
lution. 

No one need deny that evolution, both creative 
and genetic, is one of God's methods in the universe ; 
but if there be no God, there is no evolution. There 
is but one explanation of the universe, consistent 
with all the facts, conditions, and on-look of things, 
and that is, that Will—personal Will— Supreme Will 
—accounts for all. That Will may evolve, involve, 
revolve, or dissolve, as it may please, and as infinite 
wisdom may see to be best. Without that Will, we 



1 74 The Philosophy of the Sttp er natter al. 

cannot account for our own Will, or for the complex 
ity of phenomena in things without will. If there be 
no such will supreme over all, then blind, unintelli- 
gent fate, necessity, chance, or something else imper- 
sonal and dreadful grasps the universe in a remorse- 
less and eternal power. If evolution expresses will, 
religrion is silent ; but if evolution claims to be a 
blind, unintelligent power, then religion, by its very 
nature, will ever oppose it under whatever new 
names it may be known in the future, as it has ever 
opposed it under its old name of materialism in the 
past. Evolution is either a process or a method. 

I. Evolution as a process. The proposed theor}^ of 
evolution as \\\^ process of an unintelligent, impersonal 
Power has not been proved : evolution as a 7nethod of 
an intelligent, personal, Being, need not be denied. 
Evolution admits a Power unlimited in time and 
space ; and claims that its manifestation is a process, 
without beginning or ending, unintelligent and im- 
personal. Power is manifested in things, and in their 
relations. Supernatural Power is manifested in things, 
in what is called natural Force. The manifestation 
of Power in things both organic and inorganic, is 
called evolution. When Power is manifested in the 
relation or correlations of things, we must remember 
that the Power that manages the correlation is abso- 
lute, and is never itself correlated. One manifesta- 
tion is correlated with another manifestation — for in- 
stance, Power manifested as the force of heat, is cor- 
related with an equivalence of Power manifested as 
the force of electricity. The Power that as Force 
integrates matter is correlatively dissipated as Power 



Is Matter Created or Eternal 1 75 



in motion, and is increased or diminished as Force, 
but is unlimited as Power, From the standpoint of 
evolution, as formulated by Mr. Spencer, is evo- 
lution a process? But we ask, a process of what? 
Mr. S. says, '• we shall everywhere mean by evolu- 
tion, the process which is always an integration of 
matter and dissipation of matter" (F. P., §9;). Re- 
member that evolution is always a process of the in- 
tegration of matter. But whence the matter? Mr. 
Spencer says that 

{a) Matter is not created. '' The creation of mat- 
ter is inconceivable " (i Biol, § 1 12). He denies cre- 
ation when, in seeking to avoid the charge that he is 
bound to assume the first organism, says, '' the affirm- 
ation of universal evolution is, in itself, a negation of 
the absolute commencement of anything. The abso- 
lute commencement of organic life on the globe, -^ 
* * I distinctly deny " (i Biol., 482, and § 112). But, 
if it be denied that the first organism is assumed, can 
it be denied that the first atom is assumed? To 
admit the assumption of the first atom would be the 
very materialism which Mr. Spencer formally denies. 
Whether manifestations of eternal Power be pro- 
cesses or methods, they are both alike within the 
w^ays of Power, and are incomprehensible to us. 
Materialism assumes the existence of matter ; but, as ' 
we have seen, Mr. Spencer emphatically denies work- 
ing out a materialistic system. The inference is, that, 
in his theory of evolution, as in theistic cosmogony,' 
(^)— Matter is not eternal. All admit a Power un- 
limited in time and space, and, unless matter be in- 
finite, it must be limited in unlimited Power. For 



I 76 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 

such Power to be such Power, it must be supreme. 
As there cannot be two firsts — two infinite entities 
(F. P., § 24) — so there cannot be two Supremes. The 
Supreme is one. Power could have no co-ordinate 
in matter; for, in that co-ordination, Power w^ould 
would lose its supremacy, and cease to be Power un- 
limited in time and space. Therefore, if matter be 
neither created nor eternal, it follows that — 

{e) Matter is not at all but is ever becoming — that 
is, there is no matter, but there always is to be mat- 
ter. Heraclitus held to a restless, changing flux of 
things, which never are^ but are ever becoming. "■ No 
one," he says, '' has ever been twice on the same 
stream ; for different waters are continually flowing 
down : it dissipates its waters and gathers them again 
— it approaches and recedes — it overflows and it 
falls." His aphorism was : " all is motion ; there is 
no rest or quietude " (Lewes' Hist. Phi., p. 69). 
Wherein does this differ from evolution ? The insta- 
bility of the homogeneous is its pivotal doctrine. 
The parallel is wonderfully complete. The cosmic 
theory of evolution is that matter never was created 
— is not eternal, and is always a becoming. The 
manifestations of supernature are knowm as organic 
and inorganic. These manifestations, of course, have 
commencements; for, as they are the manifestations 
of eternal Power, they cannot be as eternal as their 
manifesting Power. To say that there never has 
been an absolute commencement of organic life is to 
make organic life eternal, which is absurd ; or, it is 
to make evolution to be an eddying stream, ever 
flowing out of itself in the past into itself in the 



Difference Between Emanation and Evolution. 1 7 7 

future. This ever becoming is an eternal process. If 
it has results, they are unanticipated results; for 
process that anticipates nothing is not a method that 
anticipates everything. The process of the emana- 
tion of supernatural Power of itself from itself, and 
the re-absorption of itself into itself, is Buddhism in 
science. But Buddhism is more religious in the con- 
ception of this emanating Power as an impersonal 
Being, than science is in presenting this manifesting 
Power as an impersonal force. The Buddhistic word 
''emanation" suggests a going forth of Being itself 
from itself ; while the word " manifestation " of evolu- 
tion suggests the metamorphosis of itself as itself or 
within itself-that is, Buddhism is the emanation of 
impersonal Being, and evolution is the process of 
impersonal Force. 

As Mr. Spencer denies that there is any force 
within matter, his system cannot be one of dynamics ; 
and as he also denies that there can be any force 
without or external to matter, it cannot be a system 
of mechanics ; the whole self-evolving process of or- 
ganic nature must therefore be one of genetic par- 
turition ; or, as he expresses it, '' the co-operation of 
the variously conditioned modes of universal im- 
manent force, internal and external." That is to say 
the universal '' immanent force," as an external force' 
IS genetic, or begins to produce something; and as 
an internal force, it is parturient. In this system,' to 
beget and to produce is the same act. What else 
can Mr. Spencer mean } Or, is there no begetting, and 
IS there no parturition ? What do these evolutionists 
mean to say, and what would they have us believe.^ 

TO 



1 78 The Philosophy of the Stipernattcral. 

Do they give us any more light than we had before 
as to the origin of the universe? 

Evolution is either free or necessary. Supreme 
Power hehind evolution must be free to be Supreme 
Power. If, therefore, evolution seems necessary to 
human intelligence, it cannot be necessary to super- 
human Power. But, 

{d) Evolution, as defined, is not a necessity. 
Nothing is necessary that could possibly be other- 
wise ; but what could not be otherwise to Supreme 
Will? Mr. Spencer says (Pop. Sci. M., Nov. 1880, 
p. 105): "The process of evolution is not necessar}^ 
but depends on conditions." But on what do the 
conditions depend? If the conditions are necessary, 
then, of course, evolution that depends on necessary 
conditions, is necessary. On what but Supreme Will 
can conditions depend, if they are not necessary? If 
conditions depend on Supreme Will, they are not 
necessary ; for nothing can be necessary to Supreme 
Will. That which is called necessity belongs exclu- 
sively to the sphere of nature. Supernature of its 
own Will may manifest itself in a process, or stereo- 
type itself in a method ; but we must ever remember 
that Will-Power — Supreme WillPower— is not bound 
by its own methods. Power immutable to us is not 
immutable to itself. But whether evolution is a 
method or a process, it is not necessary ; for Power 
and intelligence could form or not form the method 
it did form. But if the phenomenon called evolution 
is a process of impersonal, unintelligent Power, then 
evolution is necessary ; for unintelligent Power knew 
not how to make it otherwise. Human intelligence 



Is Progress a Necessity ? i ^g 



makes a distinction between process and method that 
superhuman Power does not make. Human names 
are only symbols of superhuman Power. Mr. Spen- 
cer both admits and denies the necessity of evolution. 
He says : *' The doctrine r)f evolution currently re- 
garded as referring only to the development of species, 
IS erroneously supposed to imply some intrinsic pro- 
clivity in every species towards a higher form ; and, 
similarly, a majority of readers make the erroneous 
assumption that the transformation which constitutes * 
evolution, in its wider sense, implies an intrinsic ten- 
dency to go through those changes which the formula 
of evolution expresses. But all who have fully grasped 
the argument of this work (Principles of Sociology), 
will see that the process of evolution is not necessary,' 
but depends on conditions : (Pop. Sci. M., Nov.,' 
1880, p. 105). Mr. Spencer would seem to hold in the 
certainty of progress that there is the certainty of 
the^conditions of progress. He says : (So. Sta., chap. 
II, § 4), '' The inference that as advancement has been 
hitherto the rule, it will be the rule henceforth, may 
be added a plausible speculation. But when it is 
shown that this advancement is due to the working 
of a universal law ; and, that in virtue of that law it 
must continue until the state we call perfection is 
reached, then the advent of such a state is removed 
out of the region of probability into that of certainty. 
If any one demurs to this let him point out the 
error." ^ ^ * u progress, therefore, is not an 
accident but a necessity." The theory of evolution 
is, that everything is in a state of instability, and that 
all phenomena are results of that instability, not the 



1 80 The Philosophy of the Super natzLral. 

creations of originating power, But whence are all 
things and whence is the instability of all things? 
If Will is behind all things, and behind the instabil- 
ity of all things, then nothing is necessary in the 
universe; for nothing can -be necessary to Will and 
Will be Will. Mr. Spencer says : '' All finite forms 
of homogeneous -all forms of it which we can know 
or conceive, must inevitably lapse into heterogeneity." 
{F. P. § 155). "To the conclusion that the changes 
with which evolution commences are thus necessitated 
remains to be added the conclusion that these changes 
must continue. The absolutely homogeneous must 
loose its equilibrium ; and the relatively heterogen- 
eous must lapse into the relatively heterogeneous. 
* ^ * x^nd thus, the continued changes, which 
characterize evolution, in so far as they are consti- 
tuted by the lapse of the homogeneous into the hete- 
rogeneous and of the heterogeneous into the more 
heterogeneous are necessary consequences of the per- 
sistence of force." (F. P., § 1 5 5). It is not clear in the 
face of these and other doctrinal formulas of Mr. 
Spencer that we understand him when he says: 
" The process of evolution is not necessary, but de- 
pends on conditions." Are the conditions necessary ? 
To get anything like an adequate notion of evolution, 
we must study the power that exists before evolution 
begins, the process, the conditions, the product, and 
the method of nature. From every consideration, 
we see that all must be free in the free Will of Power 
(the personal Power we call God), or all is necessary 
in the necessary process of impersonal evolution. 
The fact is, that behind an evolution inevitable as to 
us, there is the Will of Power, free as to all. To 



Is EvohUion Eternal? igi 



those who deny this Will, what happens, happens. 
Things could not be otherwise than they are. As we 
have said, evolution as a method implies intelligence. 
Evolution as a manifestation of any kind implies 
Power, and Power is Will. If human Power is 
human Will, why is not superhuman Power Super- 
human Will.P We therefore conclude that evolution 
IS a method of Superhuman Will. For that reason, 

{e) Evolution, as defined, is not eternal. Mr. 
Spencer teaches that it is eternal. He says '^he 
affirmative of eternal evolution is, in itself, the nega- 
tion of the absolute commencement of anvthinp- " 
(I Bio., 482). ^ ^' 

If there is universal evolution and there is no abso 
lute commencement of anything, then the matter to 
be integrated m evolution is eternal, and the process 
of evolution is eternal— that is, there must be an eter 
nal evolution, by eternal Power, of eternal matter 
According to this theory of evolution, eternal Power 
eternally manifested itself in some eternal thing The 
next was eternally to transform that eternal thfng into 
some other eternal thing. Agnostic evolution, in 
denying the absolute commencement of anything 
assumes the eternal existence of matter. According 
to this evolution, all things were eternal that eternal 
Power manifested in an eternal instability. The eter- 
nal power that eternally made eternal motion,then eter- 
nally dissipated eternal motion, and eternally held it- 
self eternally still, and made all things eternally stable 
The eternally diffused matter that eternal Power 
manifested eternally apart, or in an eternal disinte- 
gration, eternal Power afterwards eternally inte- 



i82 The Philosophy of the Sttpernatural 



grated or brought eternally together. What eternal 
Power eternally manifested as eternally indefinite, 
eternal Power eternally transformed into the eter- 
nally definite; and what eternal Power eternally 
manifested as eternally incoherent, eternal power 
eternally transformed into the eternally coherent. 
All eternal sameness was eternally transformed into 
eternal difference. This brings us to the absurdity 
of an acephalous universe. 

(/) If Evolution is not eternal, it is not a process. 
According to agnostic evolution, eternal Power is 
synonymous with eternal Process. But evolution is 
not eternal if there are changes in it; for the eternal 
is the unchanged. All changes are new, like the 
revolving views of the Kaleidescope ; and all that 
is new is a commencement, and all that is a commer.ce- 
ment is a creation. Creation implies Power; and 
creating powder implies intelligence, as its manifesta- 
tions are inteUigent Mr. Spencer's reasoning would 
seem to be that Power was and is all, and all was and 
is Power. There being no "absolute commencement 
of anything," eternal Power never did anything that 
was not eternal. Eternal Power evolved those eter- 
nal modes of eternal Power which he calls matter and 
motion. But can modes be eternal ? Can phenomena 
be eternal? Are changes fragments of the eternal? 
In a word, evolution is a method of going on after 
a start ; but how about the start ? In makhig evolu- 
tion universal and eternal, all things are made to go 
on without having started ; but this leads to the 
absurdity, that as nothing can go on that has not 
started, and as, according to Mr. S., nothing ever 
started, nothing has ever gone on. 



EvohUion not Proved. 183 



{g) If evolution is not a process, it is nothing. 
Mr. Spencer himself, says, " Construed in terms of 
evolution, every kind of being is conceived as a pro- 
duct of modifications wrought by insensible grada 
tions on a pre-existing kind of being ; and this holds 
as fully of the supposed commencement of organic 
lifo, as of all subsequent developments of organic life." 
(i Bio. p. 482). Yet he admits that the evolution 
alluded to in the language just quoted, is not proved 
by direct evidence. He says : '' Though the facts at 
present assignable in direct proof that by progressive 
modifications, races of organisms that are apparently 
distinct may result from antecedent races, are not 
sufficient ; yet, there are numerous facts of the order 
required." (i Bio., p. 351, § 119). 

2. Is Evolution a method f Are the manifestations 
of this admitted Power an eternal process or a pre- 
scribed method ? The answer to these questions sus- 
tains or invalidates agnostic evolution. Evolution, 
as defined is a method; but evolution defined as a 
method is not a method of evolution, but a method 
of correlation. Admitted Power, unlimited in Time 
and Space, is either intelligent or unintelligent. The 
manifestations of unintelligent Power would be utter- 
ly unintelligible; the manifestation of intelligent 
Power is a method. But whether the Power is intel- 
gent or unintelligent, Mr. Spencer calls its manifesta- 
tion a process. What is the difference between a 
method and a process, and wherein is the importance 
of the distinction? If there be design in the mani- 
festation of Power, it is unimportant whether the 
manifestation be called a process or a method. 



1 84 The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 

Method in a process makes the process a method ; 
but process in a method does not make the method 
a process. The process might realize the method ; 
as the process of the growth of a tree realizes the 
design in the seed. 

But Modern Thought, as it is called, uniformly 
omits all allusion to design, as it would imply a De- 
signer; and there seems to be a growing evasion of 
the word law, as that implies a Lawgiver. The atti- 
tude of Modern Thought is to ignore words of per- 
sonality, of Will and of Intelligence. It therefore 
uses the impersonal word ''process" in preference, if 
not to the exclusion of the personal word " method." 
To a theist method implies nothing less than personal 
intelligence — no intelligence, no method. To an 
atheist process implies nothing more than impersonal 
Power — no power, no process. In method there is 
plan ; in process there is action. That is, method 
emphasizes personal intelligence rather than imper- 
sonal Power ; process emphasizes impersonal Power 
rather than personal intelligence. Evolution as a 
process may be impersonal, if such evolution can be 
at all ; evolution as a method must be personal. There 
might be a theistic process, but there could be no 
atheistic method. The distinction, therefore, between 
method and process, in evolution, is the distinction 
between theism and atheism. If evolution were a 
process, and not a method, it would imply the eternal 
circle of an endless beginning. As the created is the 
new, so far as evolution is a process unfolding the 
new, and never repeating the old, like a method, it is 
a continuous and unbroked creation. A genetically 



Difference Between Process and Method, 185 



repeated production is a method. A process never 
repeats, but always flows on like a river without a 
fountain, A method is when Power has a way of 
creating- types and generating individuals. All new 
things are according to a method of newness ; all 
propagated things are according to a method of 
generation ; and all exchange of equivalents is accord- 
ing to a method of correlation. That which is called 
evolution, but which is the same as correlation, is a 
method, because it always does the same kind of 
thing in the same way. It is a process so far as noth- 
ing is repeated. 

Power observes a method when it always transforms 
the homogeneous into the heterogeneous ; when it 
always defines the indefinite, or always coheres the 
incoherent; or when it always integrates diffused 
matter as motion dissipates. This is method and not 
process ; and being a method, it implies personal in- 
telligence, power, and a time when method was not. 
Evolution, as defined, is an eternal correlation or ex- 
change of matter and motion ; evolution, as described, 
is the process of an eternal coming and going, the 
flux and reflux of Heraclitus, of matter and its modes. 
Evolution, as defined, is the barter of matter and 
force in nature, giving so much of one for so much 
of the other ; evolution, as described, is the allotrop- 
ism — the chemistry — the metamorphosis of nature. 

Prof. Tyndall confesses that " the whole process of 
evolution is the manifestation of a power absolutely 
inscrutable, to the intellect of man." But nature 
makes as high a revelation of intelligence, as she 
does of Power ; but why admit the Power and deny 



1 86 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

the intelligence behind the Power? Can we think of 
either without thinking of both ? In looking at 
Grecian Temples, and Christian Cathedrals, do we 
think only of the strength of the materials in their 
construction? or, are we not rather impressed with 
their feeling of aspiration, and the wonderful intelli- 
gence of their plan and decorations ? In the minute 
and graceful, do we not think more of the intelli- 
gence than we do of the Power they exhibit ? and so 
of the wondrous system of worlds around us. Is the 
Cosmos a process of impersonal Power, or the 
method of Personal Will ? Why should the Power 
personalized in human nature be impersonalized 
in superhuman nature ? If all things are mani- 
festations of a power that transcends our knowl- 
edge, it is as illogical to deny the personality of 
that Power as to affirm its impersonality. But how 
shall we account for our conscious personality ? 
If there never has been any absolute commence- 
ment of organic life on the globe, as Mr. Spencer 
emphatically affirms (i Biol., p. 482), then, human life 
must have been eternal in the eternity of superhuman 
life. To say that dead matter is a mode of life is 
mere assertion, unscientific in its dogmatic tone. If 
living organisms are eternal continuities of life, let it 
be shown. The bearing of what is strangely called 
evolution is to impersonalize Power, and to deny 
personal creation. It uses the word manifestation 
in place of the word creation ; but the word 
manifestation will answer for religion as well as for 
science. 

Evolution, as taught by Mr. Spencer, originates 



Design Lifts a Process into a Method. 187 

nothing; for, in his theory of evolution, nothing is 
original, or, to use his phrase, *' there never was an 
absolute commencement of anything." All things 
are said to be in an eternal activity of flux and reflux. 
According to this theory, evolution is an eternal pro- 
cess of unoriginated development of one thing out of 
another, either by eternal generation, or by eternal 
metamorphosis. There being no matter, as is claimed, 
either created or eternal, but only our conception, as 
the symbols of matter, evolution is only the eternal 
process of the symbols of an Unknowable Reality, 
called matter. Can it be said to be unknown, when 
unlimited Power, of which it is a manifestation, is 
admitted to be eternal? 

Materialistic evolutionists deny a prescribed method 
and affirm an eternal process. A method which im- 
plies design may include a designed process, but an 
undesigned process can never include a designed 
method. Design lifts a process into a method. Tak- 
ing evolution as Mr. Spencer defines it (F. P., § 145), 
it is a method of correlation. Taking evolution as he 
describes it {lb. % 97), and evolution is a process. He 
says, " we shall everywhere mean by Evolution the 
process which is always an integration of matter and 
dissipation of motion, but which, as we shall now see, 
is in most cases much more than this.'' As a method, 
what is called evolution is correlation ; an intelligent 
process is a method. As an unintelligent process, 
evolution is impossible; for an unintelligent, imper- 
sonal process must be an eternal process ; and an 
eternal process of an unintelligent, impersonal Power, 
is unintelligible. All manifestation of intelligent 



1 88 The Philosophy of the SupernaturaL 



Power is either a method or a miracle. If all that is 
unintelligent be a process, it cannot be a method ; if 
all that is intellig-ent be a method, it cannot be a pro- 
cess. Method implies intelligence and intelligence 
implies a method. 

3. Evolution cannot be a process rather than a method ; 
and this distinction is most important if there is to 
be any moral conduct. Moral conduct implies the 
intelligence and will that is implied in method. If 
intelligent method in evolution be denied, so intelli- 
gent conduct must be denied in morality ; for a mor- 
ality without intelligence is without authority, and 
morality without authority is no morality. The 
learned writer of the Introduction to the Data of 
Ethics, says, there are two systems of morality — that 
which claims supernatural authority, and that which 
is grounded in nature ; one of these must be accepted 
or all morality is denied." (Intro. D. E. IX). But if 
nature be an unintelligent, impersonal process, no 
system of moral conduct can be grounded on it. An 
unintelligent, unauthorized process cannot evolve in- 
telligent, authorized conduct. But intelligence and 
will implied in a method of evolution is the intelli- 
gence and will implied in an authority of conduct. 
Therefore, if morality be an evolution, as Mr. S. 
claims, then evolution must be an intelligent method ; 
but if evolution be an unintelligent process, then 
morality is an impossibility. 

Mr. Spencer admits, as we have seen on p. 16, 
that " all accountable and natural facts are proved to 
be, in their ultimate genesis, unaccountable and super- 
natural " (F. P., § 30) ; and from this we might reason- 



Supernatural Morality. 1 89 



ably expect Mr. Spencer to teach a supernatural 
morality. He says "amid the mysteries which be- 
come the more mysterious the more they are thought 
about, there will remain the one absolute certainty, 
that he is ever in the presence of an Infinite and Eter- 
nal Energy, from which all things proceed." Pop. 
Sci. M., Jan., 1884.) Though he thus admits the 
supernatural — the Infinite and Eternal Energy from 
which all things proceed — he not onl}^ does not 
expect morality to proceed from this Energy, but 
says, " The establishment of rules of right conduct 
on a scientific basis is a pressing need. Now that 
moral injunctions are losing the authority given by 
their supposed sacred origin, the secularization of 
morals is imperative." (Pref. Data of Ethics, vi). 
The ''sacred origin of moral injunctions" is not 
supposed but necessarily ad^nitted in the admission of 
supernature. And again : if from the Infinite and 
Eternal Energy all things proceed, why are moral 
injunctions excepted, why should the secularization 
of morals be imperative ? If from this Infinite Energy 
all things proceed, how can morals be secularized? 
That which is essentially sacred cannot become sec- 
ular. 

We expect to show the impossibility of Mr. Spen- 
cer's system of morality ''grounded in nature," where 
he exclusively places it; and also to show that mor- 
ality must be from the supernature, which he admits, 
exactly under the authority where he denies it to be. 
To admit supernature, admits its moral as well as its 
material authority. It would be more consistent 
either to deny the supernatural, or to admit its moral 



IQO The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

authority. If the basis of morals must be scientific, 
of course morals must be natural and not supernatu- 
ral ; because there can be no science of the super- 
natural. Suppose, that, by induction, we tr}^ to put 
morals upon a scientific basis : what must we first 
do? Mr. Spencer says, " Our preparatory step must 
be to study the evolution of conduct." (D. E., § 2) ; 
that " moral phenomena " (as all else) '' are the phe- 
nomena of evolution." (D. E., § 23). Is this evolu- 
tion theistic or atheistic — free or necessary — pre- 
scribed or unprescribed ? Unless there are two or 
more kinds of evolution, the laws of the evolution of 
morals must be the same as the laws of the evolution 
of matter. Not stopping- here to define any terms — 
nature or supernature — morality or evolution— the 
logical argument is, that whatever is not prescribed 
is either accidental or necessary. According to mate- 
rialistic evolutionists, evolution is not prescribed, and 
is, therefore, either accidental or necessary. It must 
be necessary ; for, as to morals, Mr. Spencer says (D. 
E., §21): "The view for which I contend is, that 
Morality, properly so-called — the science of right 
conduct — has for its object to determine how and why 
certain modes of conduct are detrimental, and cer- 
tain other modes beneficial. These good and bad 
results cannot be accidental; but must be necessary 
consequences of the constitution of things." A nec- 
essary constitution of things makes consequences 
necessary. Between the constitution of things and 
necessary consequences, where does necessity begin? 
What is necessity ? Theists contend, that with a 
divine Will in the universe nothing is necessary. 



Atheistic Evohttion is Necessary. 191 



But to theists it is more easy to tell what necessity is 
not than what it is. Necessity is not the irrevocable 
behind us, but it is the inevitable before us. In neces- 
sity there is no intelligence, for there is no plan ; 
there is no will, because there is no choice ; there is 
no hope, because there is no escape ; there is no re- 
sponsibility, because there is no freedom. If, then, 
evolution is not prescribed because prescription im- 
plies authority, which materialistic evolutionists deny; 
and if evolution, especially of morality, is not an 
accident, as we learn from Mr. Spencer, it is evident 
from the reasoning of these materialistic evolution- 
ists and from their stand-point, that, 

First. — All evolution is necessary evolution. If it 
is not necessary is it free? If it is free, is it evolu- 
tion? By evolution, is generally meant phenomena 
without a God. If all things come from God, it 
does not matter whether we call the wa}^ they come, 
evolution, or creation, or anything else. Right here, 
as to whether evolution is free or necessary, is the 
whole question of natural or supernatural morality. 
As we know no freedom apart from Will, if there be 
no Will in evolution, there can be no freedom. If 
evolution be neither free nor accidental, it must be 
necessary. Evolution does not claim to proceed 
from Will, or to address itself to will. It is not free 
to command, and no one is free to obey. Therefore, 
it must be admitted or denied, that all impersonal 
evolution is necessary evolution. If it be admitted, 
as it must be by all materialistic evolutionists, then, 
it follows, as all evolution is necessary, and all natural 
morality is an evolution, that all natural morality 



192 The Philosophy of the SMpernatural. 

must be necessary; and necessary moralit}^ is no 
morality. If it be denied, and it be claimed, that 
there is a natural morality, which is an evoluution, 
but not a necessary evolution, then such evolution 
must be merely a method of a free Power ; and if 
free, as we are conscious of freedom only in a free 
Will, we come, in our denial of a necessary evolution, 
to an all-evolving Will, whose uniformity is not a 
necessity of evolution. 

Mr. Spencer speaks of a " Power manifested through- 
out evolution work." Does this power work with 
method or without method? According to Prof. 
Hasckel, and some other materialistic evolutionists, 
this Power works without method. He says in his 
Munich Address, that "those rudimentary organs 
— eyes that see not — wings that fly not, muscles that 
do not contract, clearly show, that conformity to an 
end, in the structure of organic forms, is neither 
general nor complete ; they do not emanate from a 
plan of creation drawn up beforehand, but were of 
necessity produced by the accidental clash of mechan- 
ical causes." (Mr. Spencer denies '' accidental conse- 
quences.") Can things be necessarily produced that 
were not necessarily caused ? If Prof. Hasckel is 
right, then nature, (including things " of necessity 
produced " ) under necessity and without Will, puts 
under necessity and without Will, all in nature. If 
nature is thus necessar}-, and evolution is a way of 
nature, then all evolution is necessary. Things evolve 
because they must ; they cannot be otherwise than 
they are. Whatever is, is inevitable. No intelligent 
Will started the universe, and there is no intelligent 



Necessity, in Evolution. 



193 



Will to stop It. The abstract must become concrete 
—the absolute must become the conditioned Mr 
Spencer states the doctrine of necessity quite as 
sharply as Prof. H. He says, " moral principles must 
conform to physical necessities." (D. E., § 22). 

Morality is either evolved or prescribed If 
evolved, It IS said to be " grounded in nature," and 
IS called Natural Morality. If morality is prescribed 
It is said, as blind, unintelligent nature prescribes 
nothing, " to claim supernatural authoritv," and is 
called Supernatural Morality. If nature is necessary 
then the supernature admitted by Mr. Spencer so 
far as It is not self-limited in nature, must be free 
Therefore Morality is either evolved as necessary in 
nature, or prescribed as free in supernature. In evo- 
lution, as nothing cannot evolve something, some- 
thing must, from itself, evolve something like itself 
as the necessary from the necessary ; for, if unlike 
Itself, It IS something evolved from nothing; which 
IS impossible. All evolution is under Will or not 
under Will ; if not under Will, it is necessary • if 
under Will, evolution is only the method of free 
Win. 

But, according to the theory of natural evolution 
the homogeneous must be unstable ; the instability of 
the homogeneous must differentiate into the hetero 
geneous; the dissipation of motion mtist inteo-rate 
matter ; effects must follow causes ; and causes'^^^..^ 
multiply effects. Now, where is there enough free 
dom of action in all this, for that free action called 
moral action ? But let us say in passing, that what 
IS must to human limitations is not must to unlimited 
superhuman Power. 
13 



194 ^■^^ Philosophy of the Super itatural. 

Second. — All so-called Natural Morality is an evo- 
lution. What is morality? Morality is right con- 
duct. What makes conduct right? Mr. Spencer 
says it is the ''adjustment of the acts to ends." (D. 
E., § 2.) But how is the adjustment to be made, and 
who is to make it? How are we to answer this 
question? Adjustment implies personal intelligence 
and power. 

The definition of conduct which emerges is either 
— acts adjusted to ends, or else — the adjustment of 
acts to ends ; according as we contemplate the 
formed body of acts, or think of the form alone. 
And conduct in its full acceptation must be taken as 
comprehending all adjustments of acts to ends, from 
the simplest to the most complex, whatever their 
special natures and whether considered separately or 
in their totality. 

" Our preparatory step must be to study the evolu- 
tion of conduct." (D. E., § 2.) Moral conduct is 
either prescribed unevolved, or evolved unprescribed 
or evolved as prescribed. If prescribed unevolved, 
or evolved as prescribed, it is prescribed by superhu- 
man personal Will to human personal Will If evolved 
unprescribed, it implies impersonality, and excludes 
Will. Prof. Hseckel and other materialists teach, that 
nature evolves unprescribed, or in Prof. H.'s phrase, 
" with no plan drawn up beforehand." Mr. Spencer 
says, as we have seen, that " Moral phenomena are 
phenomena of evolution." 

But the whole terminology of the evolution theory 
indicates its origin in materiahstic philosophy. " The 
instability of the homogeneous" — "the integration 



Necessity in Evohition. 195 



of matter is the dissipation of motion " and so on, 
show that matter only is in the mind of the evolu- 
tionist. When it was extended over the whole field 
of the universe, either evolutionary terminology 
must have a secondary and figurative meaning as 
applied to the sphere of mind, or mind itself must 
be materialized ; that this was Mr. Spencer's conclu- 
sion we shall see further on. But whether moral 
conduct is under nature or supernature or both, in 
Mr. Spencer's opinion, it is an evolution. But if 
conduct is an evolution and evolution is necessary, 
then conduct is necessary, and therefore not under 
moral authority or moral responsibility. But, it is 
not clear how conduct, which is an act of Will, can 
be strictly under the laws of evolution where there 
is no Will. And to apply evolution to moral conduct 
seems to be forcing the theory ; but for the present 
let us consider it as a source of moral conduct, as is 
claimed for it. 

77//r^.— Therefore, all so-called Natural Morality 
is a necessary evolution. In the end it will be evi- 
dent that, as to this philosophy, the conduct called 
Natural Morality is not only an evolution, as specially 
taught by Mr. Spencer, but that it is a necessary evo- 
lution, as taught by both Mr. Spencer and Prof. 
Haeckel. This conclusion is reached by the argu- 
ment already given ; and will now be confirmed by 
that which is added. Evolution is either natural or 
supernatural. If natural, then, as nature, according 
to Prof. Hasckel, has no method or plan, natural evo- 
lution has no method or plan. If natural evo- 
lution has no method or plan, then moral conduct 



1 96 The Philosophy of the SMpernatural. 



grounded in nature can have no method or plan. If 
moral conduct, grounded in nature, has no method or 
plan, then Mr. Spencer's definition of ethical conduct, 
as " acts adjusted to ends," is impossible. For, 
''adjustment of acts to ends," implies a method or 
plan in nature, which Prof. Hseckel denies. Now 
either Prof. Haeckel errs in denying method or plan 
to creation, or Mr. Spencer errs in defining conduct 
as ''acts adjusted to ends." If there is no method or 
plan of adjustment in an all-including creation, there 
can be no method or plan of adjustment in a speci- 
ally included conduct. But, if there is Will—intelli- 
gence — adjustment of acts to ends, in the lower 
sphere of conduct, why is there not Will — intelli- 
gence — adjustment of acts to ends in the higher 
sphere of nature? If there is no plan — no adjustment 
of acts to ends in universal nature, as Prof. H. teaches, 
how can there be any adjustment of acts to ends in 
particular nature of conduct, as Mr. Spencer teaches? 
To Prof. H. the absence of "plan in creation" is 
the correlative presence of Necessity. He sees neces- 
sity where he sees no plan. In this doctrine of a 
necessary nature, all materialistic evolutionists agree. 
Dr. Maudsley (Body and Will, p. 124) says, "It is a 
law of Nature, and therefore a necessity, that the 
sun rises day after day." He does not account for 
the law of nature, and so he does not define necessity. 
Mr. Spencer says (D. E., §22), "Throughout the 
whole of human conduct, necessary relations of 
causes and effects prevail." Again : " The connexion 
between cause and effect is one that ca?inot be estab- 
lished, or altered, by any authority external to the phe- 



No A^tthority in Evolution. k^j 

nomena themselves^ (lb) It is sufficient that the 
authority be internal to the phenomena : but whence 
the phenomena? Mr. Spencer says (D. E., § 22), 
" Moral principles must conform to physical neces- 
sities." For moral principles to conform to physical 
necessities, they must be, not only numerically dis- 
tinct, but they must be essentiall}^ different. But Mr. 
Spencer makes them psychologically the same. If 
matter evolves mind, or, if physical necessities evolve 
moral principles, as we understand Mr. Spencer to 
teach, they are conformed in the very process of 
evolution. Neither human will nor human intelli- 
gence have any conforming to do. Moral principles 
are so-called as a designation of a special phase or 
manifestation of physical necessities. Essentiall}^ 
they are the same. Principle is not necessity, nor is 
necessity principle. If principle is derived from un- 
derived necessity, then it is not principle, but only a 
manifestation or mode of necessity. If principle is 
underived thfcn underived moral principle cannot 
conform to underived physical necessity. The eter- 
nal cannot conform to the eternal. There is no con- 
formity between equals or co-ordinates. But Mr. 
Spencer, in making "moral phenomena the phenom- 
ena of evolution," and in making evolution an unde- 
rived, unintelligent, unconscious, impersonal, neces- 
sary process, includes moral principles in physical 
necessities ; and to speak of moral principles as con- 
forming to ph3^sical necessity, of which it is already 
only a mode, is a distinction without a difference. 
If moral principle and physical necessity are the 
same, there is identity ; but there can be no conformity 



198 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

of the same to the same. If there must be a conform- 
ity between the two that there is not in the nature of 
things, they must be different in kind, and, if differ- 
ent, there is no itexus of necessity between them. 
The underived is necessary to the derived, as the 
foundation is necessary to the superstructure ; for 
without the underived the derived could not be. 

If there can be no evolution with Will and without 
necessity, so there can be no morality with necessity 
and without Will. If necessity is the basis of evolu- 
tion, so liberty is the basis of moralit}^ If nature be 
the basis of a necessary evolution, so supernature 
must be the basis of a free morality. To define 
nature is to prove supernature; for nature is the 
known and visible part of supernature, the unknown 
and visible whole. 

Evolution as a method, under intelligent Will-Power, 
is free; but evolution under Powxr without method 
of intelligent Will-Power is necessar3^ Moral or free 
conduct must be under a method of ^ower ; if not 
under a method of Power, human conduct is not 
moral. The simple question is, Is there Will in the 
universe? Will that is Will, and not a mere neces- 
sary energy of impulse? 

Here the alternative is fully presented of plan or 
necessity. According to Prof. Hasckel there is no 
intelligent, prescribed, created plan or method of 
evolution, but a direct, sharp, unequivocal doctrine 
of a necessity in all things. If evolution as a method 
of Power, is denied, this system of necessary materi- 
alism is consistent in matter, whatever may be said 
of it as to mind. Extracts from the '' Data of Ethics" 



Necessity, in Evolution. 199 

show how much the idea of necessity runs throug"h 
Mr. Spencer's presentation of the theor}^ of evolu- 
tion and of evolutionary morality. That theory is 
understood to hold, that an unintelligent, unconscious 
and impersonal, natural Power evolves the universe 
of mind and matter ; not because it intends it, wills 
it, or desires it, but because it must. The Power 
to evolve Nature is held to be this powerless Power 
of necessity — powerless because it has no power to 
do otherwise than as it does ; and that any system of 
Natural Morality must have in it this element of 
Necessity. 

According- to the theory of atheistic evolution, 
Nature works only by necessary evolution, without 
Will ; Necessity ignores Will, and Will ignores 
Necessity. '* The Power manifested throughout Evo- 
lution " is Will in itself, and knows no Will out 
of itself. If necessary Nature evolves Will as an 
impulse of desire, it cannot evolve the decision of 
that Will without destroying the Will itself. Will, 
to be Will, must be free. Recognizing Will, moral 
conduct is commanded as free, and is not evolved as 
necessary. So far as Will is ignored, moral conduct 
is evolved as necessary and is not commanded as 
free ; and just as conduct is not free, so it is not moral. 

Morality grounded in nature is called, as we have 
said, natural morality, and is an evolution either 
natural or supernatural. All evolution with plan in 
nature is supernatural to nature. All evolution with- 
out plan is natural, and therefore necessary. All 
evolution without plan is necessary rather than con- 
tingent, for contingent evolution is no evolution. 



200 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



" The homogeneous must lapse into the heterogen- 
eous." (F. P., § 155.) 

Man, in '* Morality grounded in nature," called 
Natural Morality, by observing what Nature does 
under certain circumstances, infers what, in nature, 
is best for him to do under other and similar circum- 
stances. In morality '' claiming supernatural author- 
ity," man not only observes what nature does, and 
reflects upon what nature, as a reflection of superna- 
ture, makes it wise for him to do, but, looking beyond, 
around and above Nature, he calls directly to the 
omnipresent Parent, Lord, what wilt t/iou have me 
to do ? In the latter case a moral law is prescribed 
by authority ; in the former, man infers, not a law, 
but a certain necessity of conduct ! But natural 
necessity is not natural morality. Morality is obedi- 
ence to moral law ; but evolution is not obedience — 
it is only the process of a method. What is called 
Natural Morality is the conformity of the conduct 
of rational beings to " the constitution of things." 
It is intelligent, conscious, personal man, watching 
unintelligent, unconscious, impersonal phenomena, 
rather than the Power behind the Phenomena. 

In evolution force is force. It makes no essential 
distinction between mind-force and matter-force. It 
distinguishes mind-force from matter-force only in 
its degree and attributes. In poetic language, these 
matter-forces may be said to have moral and immoral 
behaviour — they have their likes and dislikes — their 
sovereignty and subordination. It is said that chlo- 
rate of potash when heated alone will explode like 
gunpowder ; and 3^et, when heated in the presence of 



What is Moral Authority ? 201 



a black oxide of manganese, it gasifies in quietness 
and safety. The chlorate of potash behaves in the 
presence of the manganese as if it knew the presence 
of a master. Still, it is only unintelligent force 
watching and subjugating unintelligent force. But 
will it be contended that mind-force watches the phe- 
nomena of matter-force only to avoid, or make them 
available ? Is mind simply the manganese watching 
the heated potash ? Is it simply one intelligent force 
watching and manipulating all unintelligent forces ? 
Are the watched and the watcher both only different 
modes of matter? Is human personality only a 
name for a material evolution to be obliterated in a 
material dissolution ? 

Mr. Spencer himself says, in the Preface to his 
'' Data of Ethics," "■ What differences exist between 
Natural Moralit}' and supernatural Morality, it has 
become the policy to exaggerate into fundamental 
antagonisms." 

The fundamental antagonism is not between two 
moralities ; but between the two sources of authority 
— nature and supernature — of the one morality. 
Authority must be of one above, over one below ; 
and unless there be supernature, there can be no 
authority over nature ; for nature cannot be superior 
to itself. If natural morality is the natural manifes- 
tation of supernatural authority, these fundamental 
antagonisms become fundamental agreements. We 
have not two moralities, or two systems of morality, 
or two authorities of morality. The authority is one 
and the morality is one. The methods of proof are 
two — the Natural and the Supernatural — or the proof 



202 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



in evolution and the proof in inspired revelation. 
The proof of moral rules and ends in nature, by 
evolution, is called Natural Morality. This method 
of morality is agnostic or silent about the power by 
which evolution is evolution. 

Morality is called Natural Morality when, ignoring 
supernatural authority, it claims to be grounded in 
nature only. But, does the grounding in nature 
only, give morality a natural authority; or does it 
dispense with the idea of authority altogether, and 
make it a mere evolution, as inevitable or necessar}^ 
as all other evolution is claimed to be ? It is calling- 
that natural morality which we expect to show is, in 
lact, supernatural morality. It denies the invisible 
part of the visible. It denies the Factor in the fact, 
the lawgiver in the Law. 

'' We have become quite familiar" says Mr. Spen- 
cer, " with the idea of an evolution of structures, 
throughout the ascending types of animals. To a 
considerable degree we have become familiar with 
the thought that an evolution of functions has gone 
on pari passu with the evolution of structures. Now 
advancing a step, we have to frame a conception of 
the evolution of conduct, as correlated with this 
evolution of structures and functions." (D. E., § 3.) 
" Conduct is acts adjusted to ends." (D. E., § 2.) 
** Acts are called good or bad, according as they are 
well or ill adjusted to ends." {lb.) "Evolution 
becomes the highest possible when the conduct sim- 
ultaneously achieves the greatest totality of life in 
self, in offspring, and in fellow men ; so here we see 
that the conduct called good rises to the conduct 



U^iplamied Nahire is Necessary. 203 



conceived as best, when it fulfils all three classes of 
ends at the same time." {^Ib., % 8.) This is natural 
morality. It is human acts adjusted to human ends. 
But acts, ends, and adjustments are evolutions ; and, 
if evolutions, they are necessary. 

Some contend that evolution is the free creative 
method of an impersonal Creator. This would imply 
an impersonal intelligence, and an impersonal Will, 
and an impersonal " Power manifested through evo- 
lution work." From the consciousness of our own 
personal Will and intelligence we can form no idea 
of impersonal Will and intelligence ; and so, in all ages, 
human personality has thought of a superhuman per- 
sonality, to account for its own personahty. 

Evolutionar}^ necessity being admitted or proved, 
warrants the direct conclusion that evolutionary 
conduct called Natural Morality, being evolved like 
gravitation, electricity, and everything else in "the 
Constitution of things,,' should be called mere natural 
phenomena, not natural uioralitj'. Where there is 
no Will, there is no morality — no one to command 
and no one to obey — and no responsibility, eitlier 
personal or civil. 

If, according to Prof. Hseckel, that which is with 
out method or plan is necessary, then all natural 
evolution, being the evolution of a necessary nature 
without method or plan, as distinguished from super- 
natural ev^olution with a method or plan is neces- 
sary evolution. The alternative is Will or Neces- 
sity — nature under supernatural Will, or nature 
under natural necessity. If nature is necessar}^ and 
if nature is all, then natural morality is necessary in 



204 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



the agent, necessary in causes, and necessary in 
effects. If anything is necessary in the universe, 
everything is necessary — that is, all is necessary or 
nothing is necessary. The most pressing question in 
the evolution of morality is, Is man so far a free or 
moral agent as to enable him to adjust the acts of 
his conduct to his own and the happiness of others, 
as an end ? Has he a Will so free that it is in his 
power to obey or to disobey moral authority ? Ad- 
justment is an act of Will, extrinsic or intrinsic. The 
still earlier question in this agnostic evolutionary 
philosophy is, Is there any authority, strictly so-called, 
in the universe? or are the acts of man's conduct 
necessary evolutions, making his Will identical with 
necessary desires or motives ? How are we to under- 
stand Mr. Spencer when he says that " every one is 
at liberty to do what he desires to do (supposing that 
there are no external hindrances) all admit ; though 
people of confused ideas commonly supposed this to 
be the thing denied ? " (i Psy., § 219.) 

The Will which he thus admits to be free, his sys- 
tem proves to be necessar}^ The moral liberty here 
admitted, seems to be inconsistent with the evolu- 
tionary necessity afterwards affirmed bv Mr. Spencer, 
when he says : '' But, that every one is at liberty to 
desire or not to desire, which is the real proposition 
in the dogma of free Will, is negatived as much by 
the analysis of consciousness as b}^ the contents of 
the preceeding chapters." {lb.) Memory, Reason 
and Feeling simultaneously arise as the automatic 
actions become complex, infrequent and hesitating ; 
and Will, arising at the same time, is necessitated by 



The Will Accordi7ig to Spe^icer, 205 

these^conditions." {lb., § 217.) He says, " until there 
is motive (mark the word) there is no Will. That is 
to say, Will is no more an existence separate from 
the predominating feeling than a King is an existence 
separate from the man occupying the throne." [lb., 
% 220.) 

'' Moral principles " and '' physical necessities " be- 
long to contradictory systems of truth. Principles 
are the beginnings of things, and synonymous with 
cause. A moral principle cannot be a physical nec- 
essity, nor can a physical necessity be a moral prin- 
ciple. The terms represent ideas radically different. 
If a moral principle be a necessary evolution of 
matter, then, though it may be called a necessary 
evolution, it cannot be called a conformity. The 
potter may form the clay, but the clay does not con- 
form to the potter. 

If we are to speak of the evolution of morality as 
Natural Morality, then, what is its authority ? Can 
Nature authorize itself? This depends upon the 
question ; Is there Supernature ? If there is super- 
nature, then supernature is the authority for Natural 
Morality, or it has none. But as morality without 
authority is no morality, so, as nothing can be author- 
ity to itself, Nature is not authority as such to nature, 
for natural morality to be morality, it must have 
supernatural authority ; and as the authority of 
nature is supernature, so, for Natural Morality there 
must be Supernature. If conduct called natural 
morality be only an evolution, but a necessary evolu- 
tion, it is evident, as there can be no authority over 
necessity, that, 



2o6 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



First. — All necessary evolution is without (i) moral 
authority. What is authority? If we understand 
Mr. Spencer, he ignores all authority. He says (D. 
E., § 22), " The connexion between cause and effect 
is one that cannot be established, or altered, by any 
authority external to the phenomena themselves." 
But can there be any authority internal to the phe- 
nomena ? 

Authority as authority is underived personal power, 
prescribing personal conduct. It is not between per- 
sonal equals, or between impersonal things. It is exclu- 
sively personal. There is no authority in impersonal 
power over persons ; or in personal power over im- 
personal things, or in the power of impersonal things 
over impersonal things. Authority is prescribed Will. 
Unprescribed Will is power, but not authority. 
Though the power to originate is the power to control, 
yet, authority is original power over the conduct of 
iree persons, as distinguished from the original power 
over the phenomena of necessary things. Underived 
personal Will is authority over the personal Will de- 
rived from the underived. 

Agnosticism teaches a necessary, material system, 
and denies a free, moral system. Mr. Spencer says, 
" We have seen that during the progress of animate 
existence, the later-evolved, more compound and more 
representative feelings, serving to adjust the conduct 
to more distant and general needs, have ail along 
had an authority as guides superior to that of the 
earlier and simpler feeling — excluding cases in which 
these last are intense. This superior authority, 
unrecognizable by lower types of creatures which 



What is Moral Authority ? 207 



cannot generalize, and little recognizable by prima- 
tive men, who have but feeble powers of generaliza- 
tion, has become distinctly recognized as civilization 
and accompanying mental development have gone 
on. Accumulated experiences have produced the 
consciousness that guidance by feelings which refer 
to remote and general results, is usually more con- 
ducive to welfare than guidance by feelings to be 
immediately gratified. For what is the common 
character of the feelings that prompt honesty, truth- 
fulness, diligence, providence, etc., which men habit- 
ually find to be better prompters than the appetites 
and simple impulses? They are all complex, re-rep- 
resentative feelings, occupied with the future rather 
than the present. The idea of authoritativeness has 
therefore come to be connected with feelings having 
these traits ; the implication being that the lower and 
simpler feelings are without authority. And this 
idea of authoritativeness is one element in the abstract 
consciousness of duty." (D. E., § 46.) The power 
that produces a tree does not, as authority, command 
the tree to come or to live. In other words, neither 
production nor sustenance is authority, because pro- 
duction and sustenance, in materialism, are not pre- 
scribed. Superhuman power, as Creator, produces 
things; and superhuman power, as Authority, com- 
mands or prescribes its personal creatures to produce 
actions of their own. 

Authority is said to be power over conduct. But, 
is there any such power? If not, let us change all 
our moral ideas and words. If there is any control 
over conduct, let us know what it is. Evolution is 



2o8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



ceaseless production, and nothing but production. 
It produces everything, but commands nothing, unless 
production is command. But, if there is anything 
that may be called Authority in the universe, let us 
define and obey it ; if it is supernatural, let us know 
and reverence it. By admitting authority, we admit 
responsibility, and by denying either we deny both ; 
and so, all morality, whether natural or supernatural. 
Unphilosophical conclusions, negativing authority 
and responsibility, leave conduct without a guide. 
What our souls are to our bodies, supernature is to 
nature ; therefore, to take supernature out of nature, 
is to leave society and individual virtue to ask guid- 
ance of a silent, awful, deaf corpse. We contend for 
nature — for supernature in nature — and for per- 
sonality to that supernature. As authority is per- 
sonal, if impersonal nature has a morality, it has a 
morality without authority. But basing morality on 
authority, as there can be but one undisputed author- 
ity in the universe, so there can be but one undis- 
puted morality in the universe. As said before, natu- 
ral consequences of conduct are the exponents of 
supernatural authority. Natural consequences are 
from supernatural power. Morality is, therefore, 
natural morality on the side of natural consequences, 
and supernatural morality on the side of supernatural 
authority. Authority precedes and consequences 
follow conduct. 

There is nothing in an impersonal effect that we 
are accustomed to think of as personal authority. 
Authority speaks before conduct ; effect speaks after. 
Authority prescribes what ought to be done ; effects 



Authority and Necessity Inconsistent. 209 



subscribe what has been done. Authority in sover- 
eign sympathy commands; effect in silent apathy 
records. Authority gives a law ; effect is the occa- 
sion of an inference. Authority says, if you are 
wise you will not strike the rock with your hand ; 
effect, holding up its bleeding hand, says, I was not 
wise, and I struck. 

As in materiahstic necessity there is no such thing 
as moral conduct, the words '' morality," '^ authority," 
*' responsibility," in the future of evolutionary term- 
inology would cease to be used; for Will, as we 
know it, being no longer admitted in human psy- 
chology, there w^ould be no ideas for these words to 
represent. 

But Natural Morality, if any, as it includes neces- 
sity, excludes from conduct not only all authority 
over freedom, but all moral freedom itself. AH 
necessary morality is without authority. Necessity 
excludes authority. That which must be, needs no 
authority. An unintelligent, impersonal constitution 
of things may compel but can have no authority over 
an intelHgent, personal being. This whole discussion 
brings us into the presence of the old question of 
liberty under supernatural authority or no liberty 
under natural necessity. Morality is human conduct 
free under authority ; if it is inevitable under neces- 
sity it is not morality. Authority requires, but does 
not evolve; Necessity evolves but does not require. 
Human conduct required or prescribed by authority, 
IS morality ; if conduct is not required or prescribed 
by authority, whatever else it may be, it is not 
morality. If conduct, evolved under ]N"ecessity, be 



14 



2IO The Philosophy of the Supe7matttraL 

morality, then what is conduct required under author- 
ity ? Is that morality too ? or is there no authority ? 
If conduct free under authority and evolved under 
necessity, both be morality, there must be some har- 
monizing power ab extra, to make them consistent ; 
making that necessary which it authoritatively com- 
mands, and authoritatively commanding what it 
makes necessarv. 

There is no authority, as such, in consequences. 
Consequences may expose to us the absence of wis- 
dom in our past acts, and warn us not to repeat (as 
if the acts could be repeated) the acts which caused 
the consequences; but they prescribe or predict 
nothing as to the other and different acts we may 
commit in the future. But if conduct be an evolu- 
tion, it can never be repeated, for evolution never 
repeats anything. From sameness it ever works 
towards difference — from the homogeneous to the 
heterogeneous. As evolution never repeats the past, 
it can never warn of the future. It cannot tell us the 
new things it is ever to do. Its necessity to differen- 
tiate its work — its committal to perpetual heterogen- 
eity, makes it valueless to experience. It is useless 
for the experience of consequences to warn us not to 
repeat acts that we call bad ; because evolution 
assures us that in its necessity to go on, neither 
conduct nor consequences can be repeated. The 
office of evolution is to manifest results, not to pre- 
scribe moral law. 

Are we to understand, when morality, claiming 
supernatural authority, is contrasted with morality 
grounded in nature, that morality under authority is 



Facts as such not Attthority. 21 1 



supernatural, and morality not under authority, is 
natural ? Again we ask, what is authority ? Author- 
ity is the supremacy of personal Will over personal 
Will, and is more than the mere presence of Power, 
and more than the manifestation of Power through 
impersonal phenomena ; though it may certify itself 
through these manifestations. Authority is the sov- 
ereignty of personal Power, commanding obedience 
of all persons subject to its control. 

According to Mr. Spencer, the only authority is 
the lesson of facts, or the inferences of experience. 
But this is not authority as we have been accustomed 
to thmk it. Authority is a personal government. 
We attribute an impersonal authority to the imper- 
sonal sovereignty of the state ; but the authority is 
only so in a figurative sense, as it represents the 
aggregate of personality in the state. 

But it may be asked : What is the need of super- 
natural authority, or authority of any kind ? Why 
may not conduct be reasonable conduct, under neither 
authority nor responsibility ? If the individual rea- 
son is competent to decide upon a moral authority, 
why is it not competent to decide upon moral ques- 
tions ? Why is not the reasonableness of an act a 
sufficient authority for the act? To what else, they 
say, but to reason can a man turn in the moral emer- 
gencies of conduct— there are no Urim and Thum- 
mim to consult? If, according to St. Paul, ''the 
Gentiles which have not the law, do by Nature the 
things contained in the law," why may not all, like 
these Gentiles, take the nature of things, discoverable 
by reason, as all needful authority? Authority, it is 



2 1 2 The Philosophy of the SttpernatttraL 

said, cannot make that right which, in its nature, is 
wrong ; nor that wrong which, in its nature, is right. 

It may be asked, why not reject the idea of author- 
ity altogether ; or, if there must be authority, why is 
not rightness its own authorit}'? But, even if a 
right act needs no other authority than its own 
righteousness, whence that righteousness ? Personal 
rights are inherent in personal relations. But whence 
the relations ? They are neither eternal nor self-ex- 
istent, nor are the inherent rights essential to them 
either eternal or self-existent. Eternal justice or right 
is a high-sounding phrase ; but, in the nature of 
things, there can be no justice without relations, and 
evolutionary relations are not eternal. If relations 
are derived, so are the inherent rights essential to 
them. Relations and rights come together one with 
the other. Rights are either absolute or relative. If 
absolute, they are commanded because they are right ; 
if relative, then they are right because they are com- 
manded. Only underived existence is absolute ; only 
derived existence is relative. The absolute has no 
rights, for no one can possibly do it any wrong. 
Rights come and end with relations. 

Personal rights in what is called the nature of 
things are relative, not absolute, because no solitary 
person has rights; and they are personal, because 
such things as trees and stones have no rights either 
as to each other, or as to persons. If brutes have 
rights, man does not respect them as rights, even 
their right to live. Personal rights which are essen- 
tial to personal relations, are the very purpose— aim- 
ethics— necessity— congruity— exponent of the rela- 



Is NaHtre Intelligent or Unintelligent ? 2 1 



tions, and exhibit their own laws of essential harmon- 
ies. One cannot be related to himself ; but, the coming 
of two or more people together, constitutes the rela-. 
tion of many in one. New mutual rights inherent 
in and essential to the new relations co-exist. Moral 
conduct, therefore, is obedience to autliority— the 
authority of the underived over the derived. Thus, 
whether authority be that of impersonal nature, as 
some insist, or that of a personal God, that is right 
which is essential to the relation or which this author- 
ity commands, and that is wrong which it forbids 
or which is inconsistent with the relation itself. 

We never know where a blind man may step — he 
does not know himself. As like understands like, 
mind can communicate with mind. It is only the 
mind in matter that our minds can understand. Hu- 
man intelligence can somewliat understand the plans 
of superhuman intelligence. Human conduct can in- 
telligently accommodate itself to Nature only as it 
understands what nature means. But for nature to 
mean anything, it must be intelligent; and this, 
materialistic logic cannot admit. 

If an impersonal constitution of things, or what is 
called Nature, rewards or punishes conduct, it does 
so intelligently or unintelligently. If Nature be in- 
telligent, it is personal (if external nature is like the 
nature within us), and if personal, it is God. If exter- 
nal nature is unintelligent, then there is no intelligent 
reward or punishment for human conduct. An unin- 
telligent sequence to our conduct is material, not mor- 
al. When we do what we call a good act, does Nature 
blindly grasp the act, and do something, nut knowing 



2 14 ^^^^ Philosophy of the StcpernaturaL 



what it does? Does Nature reward our actions, not 
knowing that it rewards? Does it punish not know- 
ing that it punishes ? By theory, impersonal Nature 
has no intelligence, and does not know what it is do- 
ing, whether it is helping or hurting personal nature. 
Admitting that Nature knows what it is about, and 
that it always works the same knowing way, human 
action might intelligently work to it. But what is the 
use of human intelligence if there be no superhuman 
intelligence? How can intelligent, personal Nature un- 
derstand the meaning of impersonal Nature when it has 
no intelligence to mean anything? If Nature knows 
nothing, it cannot know when we do a good action, nor 
when we do a bad action. If Nature knows nothing, it 
strikes blindly, both friends and foes. As you find 
intelligence in superhuman Nature, you find God — 
the human personality finds and understands some- 
thing of the superhuman personality. Personality can 
communicate with personality— this must be admit- 
ted, or nothing is admitted ; for rational personality 
cannot communicate with irrational impersonality. 
We cannot make our minds known to a tree or to a 
stone, or to " the constitution of things." These have 
no ear to hear, nor mind to know. The '' necessary 
consequences" of conduct are the only announcements 
made by *' the constitution of things," and this is after, 
and not before conduct. But as no experiences 
are ever alike, the constitution of things stands ready 
to strike after, but never to warn conduct before, of 
its consequences. 

Authority is a personal attribute. I repeat, there 
is power but no authority in gravitation, chemic affin- 



Authority is Per social not Impersonal. 2 1 5 



ity, electricity— in a word, in any impersonal force or 
principle. Authority is the commaixi of a superior 
to an inferior. Supernature is the authority of nature, 
if nature has any authority ; for nature cannot be over 
itself and so an authority unto itself. Impersonal na- 
ture commands nothing. Impersonal power is to ma- 
terial nature what personal authority is to personal 
conduct. Necessity is not authority. Advice is not 
authority. The origin of authority is will ; it is al- 
ways personal ; it may be uniform, but it is not nec- 
essary. 

So far as evolution takes the supernatural out of na- 
ture, conduct in what is called Natural Morality, is 
under no authority ;— nor, indeed, in the theory of 
evolution, is it possible for it to be. The idea of au- 
thority disappears altogether from evolutionary spec- 
ulations. Necessity takes the place of commands ; 
impersonal law ignores a personal lawgiver; un- 
planned events come along unbidden ; a world goes 
on that never started ; man is a machine evolved from 
that which was not a machine ; the universe comes 
from nothing and from nobody but itself ; and, in the 
instability of the homogeneous, itself that is, is not the 
itself that was, and is to be. Succession is not iden- 
tity. 

It is said (Intro. D. E., xxiii.) that '' When a man 
eats because he is hungry, he feels the power, but not 
the authority of appetite. When, on the other hand, 
he refrains from vicious indulgence because its later 
effects will be bad, or when he takes a walk before 
breakfast because he believes it will conduce to his 
health, though its good effect will not be immediately 



2 1 6 The Philosophy of the S^tpernatural. 

apparent, he recognizes and feels the authority of sani- 
tary rules. In these cases the degree of dissociation 
between the rule or principle recognized by the mind 
and the actual facts on which it rests is but slight ; 
yet the rise of authority is plainly visible. A rule of 
conduct once established, the mind, working quite in- 
dependently of the will of the individual, resents any 
attempt to impugn its authoritv- Naturally enough, 
seeing that to impugn its authority means an unset- 
tlement of all that the rule had settled." 

In this reasoning, the more that '' the rule or prin- 
ciple is dissociated from the actual facts on which it 
is said to rest," the more authority arises — full disso- 
ciation is full authority. And, e converso, there is no 
authority whatever in the complete identity of the 
rule or principle with the actual facts with which it 
is associated. In other words, there is no authority 
where there is identity of producer and produced — 
of Natura Nat^irans and Natura Naturata, and there 
is authority just as they are distinct. Authority is 
defined by describing this distinction. In evolution 
and evolutionary morality, force and its manifesta- 
tions are one, under two modes. 

All this is only the so-called authority of the wisdom 
of experience ; but experience is not authority. With 
the materialist, experience is a historian, not a prophet ; 
it is iniormation, not judgment ; it may persuade, not 
command ; at most it is a friend, but never a sover- 
eign. Experience is always after conduct, never before 
it; it is always different and never the same ; it is al- 
ways individual and never common ; it is always per- 
sonal and never impersonal; it is always in mind and 



Evidence is not Attthority. 21 7 



never in matter ; it records the actions of the Will, 
and a multiplicity of sequences ; its knowledge of the 
past gives neither a hope nor a despair of the future. 
With the idealist, experience is but the human knowl- 
edge of superhuman authority. A condition is not 
authority. We repeat, necessity is not authority ; nor 
is uniformity necessity. The inevitable is not author- 
ity. Evidence is not authority. The writer of the 
Introduction finds authority for sanitary rules in the 
fact that a walk before breakfast conduces to health. 
This is but the persuasion of experience, but it is not 
authority. Authority commands, not persuades. It 
gives a rule, not a reason. Authority may give a rule 
through reason, but not give reason as the rule. A 
child in some acts, obeys as required by parental au- 
thority ; in other things, it pleases itself ; yet in oth- 
ers it is passive under circumstances. Passive expe- 
rience is involuntary, and therefore necessary ; obedi- 
ence to authority is voluntary, and therefore moral ; 
all other conduct is wilfully indifferent to authority, 
and selfish, and may or may not be innocent ; but mo- 
rality is obedient conduct required by authority. With- 
out authority, you may have selfishness, passive en- 
durance, but not morality. In this way we see that to 
have morality, we must have conduct under authority. 
The issue presented is between a religious morality 
under supernatural authority and a scientific morality 
under no authority. But the issue is unreal. Science 
only investigates where religion worships. What is 
objective in nature is subjective in supernature. Nat- 
ural facts are manifestations of supernatural power 
and authority. Science studies the objective, and ig- 



2 1 8 The Philosophy of the Supernattiral. 



nores the subjective, while religion uses the objective 
to prove the subjective. The morality is one. Science 
seeks to know it through nature only, without any 
authority ; while Religion proves its authority through 
both Nature and Supernature. 

But the real authority of nature, is the Supernatural 
Will behind nature. The fire would be powerless to 
burn the child, unless power was given to it ; but the 
fire was not authority. The originator of the fire is 
the authority of the fire. Nature proclaims only the 
Supernatural Will. What is called Natural Morality 
is but the objective manifestation of, and has its au- 
thority in, subjective Supernatural Morality. Author- 
ity is always above the plane of its action. 

If morality is founded on nature, on what is nature 
founded? Mr. Spencer says (F. P., p. i6), '• informa- 
tion, however extensive it may become, can never 
satisfy inquiry. Positive knowledge does not, and 
never can, fill the whole region of possible thought. 
At the utmost reach of discovery there arises, and 
must ever arise, the question — What lies beyond ? As 
it is impossible to think of a limit to space so as to ex- 
clude the idea of space lying outside that limit ; so 
we cannot conceive of any explanation profound 
enough to exclude the question— What is the expla- 
nation of the explanation? If Supernature is denied, 
is Nature authority unto itself ? If so, one part of 
nature would command another part ; as would be the 
case if matter commanded conduct, and both matter 
and conduct were called Nature. But, after all, would 
not the part commanding be supernatural to the part 
commanded ? 



Necessary Condttct not Responsible. 219 



Is morality founded on nature, or on a supernatural 
authority which controls nature ? Why restrict the 
rules of conduct to the lesson of the facts of nature, 
and deny their authority in the Will of a supernat- 
ural Factor illustrated in the facts of nature? To 
that Will the human inquiry is driven at last. 

If morality has no supernatural authority, has it 
any natural foundation ? or is its natural foundation a 
kind of natural authority ? Or has morality no au- 
thority? It would seem that morality must be under 
authority, if anything must. But, if authority is no 
long-er to have place among moral ideas, what is to 
be substituted for it? Necessity? From our own 
human will, we infer a superhuman Will, uniform but 
never necessarily determined, in the constitution of 
things. All necessary evolution of conduct thus seen 
to be necessary, is also without, 

(ii) Moral responsibility for conduct, for causes, or 
for effects. Necessary conduct in moral evolution 
being a necessity of evolution, of course, as a neces- 
sity, must exclude moral responsibility. If ''moral 
principles must conform to physical necessities," the 
real and ultimate sphere of human conduct is physi- 
cal and not moral. But responsibility belongs to the 
moral and not the physical. 

What is responsibilty ? It is the answer made by 
derived will to the prescribed requirements of unde- 
rived Will. It is the reciprocal of authority. As the 
authority so is the responsibility. As authority is the 
power of personal will over personal will ; so respon- 
sibility is the return which personal will makes to per- 
sonal will. As action and reaction are equal and op- 



2 20 The Philosophy of the Super nahtral. 



posite, so are authority and its corresponding respon- 
sibility — responsibility is the echo of authority. Moral 
responsibility begins and ends with the freedom of 
the Will. Deny that, and you deny the moral system 
of the universe. One atom is not responsible to an- 
other atom ; gravitation is not responsible to electric- 
ity ; nor is the outcome of physical necessities re- 
sponsible to moral principles — in fact, in materialism, 
there are no moral principles. So far as moral prin- 
ciples must conform to physical necessities, they are 
not responsible to physical necessities for not con- 
forming. This reverses all former moral ideas. The 
responsibility of mind to matter — of the moral to the 
physical — is inverting the pyramid. We are respon- 
sible to authority. We viwx^t yield to necessity. If we 
retain the use and the meaning of the words author- 
ity and responsibility, we must continue to admit su- 
pernatural personality. To give up supernatural per- 
sonality, we have left, only natural impersonality; de- 
throning moral authority and abrogating moral re- 
sponsibility. 

Nature is under control from without, or from with- 
in. If it is under control from without, it is, of course, 
under supernatural authority. If supernature be de- 
nied and nature is under control from within, and na- 
ture is all, then all is natural ; and conduct commonly 
called good, and conduct commonly called bad, are, 
to nature, equally natural, and are, therefore, to na- 
ture, equally right and equally wrong. Nature cannot 
hold man responsible for what nature makes him do. 

We have said that all conduct is free or all conduct 
is necessary ; so far as conduct is necessary, it is a blind, 



Necessity is Impersonal. 2 2 1 



inexorable energy of matter, as much as is that of 
gravitation, electricity or chemic affinity; and, as an 
energy of matter, it admits of power but no author- 
ity, unless it be a supernatural authority. So far as 
conduct is free, it is moral, under supernatural au- 
thority, and cannot be necessary. 

Can morality be called morality in which super- 
natural authority is denied, and in which even natu- 
ral authority, or authority of any kind, is not admit- 
ted ? Is the idea of moral authority no longer to be 
involved in the idea of morality, and with the loss of 
the idea of authority are we also to lose the idea of 
moral responsibility ? If the ideas of authority and 
responsibility are both to be dissevered from our ideas 
of morality, what is left, but the inexorable, blind, 
impersonal, unintelligent power of necessity ? 

Is the universe under Necessity or under Author- 
ity ? Blind, unintelligent, impersonal Necessity ac- 
counts for nothing, not even for itself; intelligent, 
omnipresent, personal Authority accounts for every- 
thing, except Itself. Necessity is a matter-system, 
and materializes all heretofore mentalized ; Authority 
is a mind-system, and mentalizes all heretofore mate- 
rialized. Morality is human conduct with a moral 
purpose. Under which system is morality possible ? 
If under the matter-system, it is called Natural 
Morality; if under the mind-system, it is called 
Supernatural Morality. 

Necessity is impersonal, and executes without com- 
manding, as in gravitation ; authority is personal, 
and commands without executing, as in the command 
to do unto others as we would have others do unto 



222 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



us. All physical phenomena, in physical relations, 
are, primarily, under physical necessity ; all moral 
conduct, in moral relations, is, primarily, under moral 
authority. That is, where the power and the act are 
identical, there is no authority and no responsibility; 
and just as they are dissociated, there is authority 
and no necessity. 

But necessary conduct is not moral conduct. Com- 
pulsion creates no duties. If morality is founded in 
nature, all conduct must be natural as well as the 
consequences of conduct. But, if Nature is always 
right, and conduct be all natural, so all conduct 
would be right, and there should be no detrimental 
consequences. 

So far as the basis of things is material, it is neces- 
sary — in a word, so far as moral principles conform 
to physical necessities, they cease to be moral princi- 
ples, and necessary conduct is not responsible. We 
are not to be blamed for doing what we were com- 
pelled to do. There is no guilt in necessity. Nature 
cannot condemn us for being natural. If we are the 
higher parts of nature, we are not responsible to the 
lower parts. Equals are never responsible to equals. 
We must exonerate Nature from all responsibility, 
unless we enthrone a Supernature to whom it could 
be responsible. 

If man is not responsible for necessary, evolution- 
ary conduct, no more is he responsible for necessary 
causes in moral evolution, w^hich necessitated the 
conduct, as a necessary effect. If the conduct of 
man is an effect of some necessary cause acting upon 
him, that necessary cause was a necessary effect of 



What is Cause f 22^ 



some necessary cause before it, and so on back ad 
infinitum. 

If there is no moral responsibility for necessary 
evolutionary conduct, nor for necessary evolutionary 
causes, there is no responsibility for necessary effects 
in moral evolution. What are effects? Mr. Spencer 
says, " Universally the effect is more complex than 
the cause." (R P., § 156.) How can there be any 
more responsibility for the effect of conduct, when, 
as we have just learned from Mr. Spencer, - the 
composition of causes is so intricate, and from moment 
to moment so variable, that effects are not calcula- 
ble?" (I Psy., §219.) 

How, then, with complex and variable causes, and 
with effects so complex and variable that they are 
not calculable, can we so determine the '' necessary 
relations between causes and effects" as to obtain a 
rule of moral conduct, and fix moral responsibility ? 
We cannot understand cause, but can we any more 
understand effect? What is cause -the seed, the 
soil, or the sun— to the wheat ? What is the effect of 
the cause— the wheat, the nourishment to the eater, 
the deeds he does, or the thoughts he thinks ? Effect 
follows, but does not come out of, what we call cause 
Night is not the effect of the preceding day. In the 
correlation of force there is all of cause and effect 
that there is anywhere ; but in the sympathy of direct 
correlation, though the presence of one thing is the 
presence of some other things, one does not create 
the other into its presence. Good labor is the occa- 
sion of good wages ; the presence of religion is the 
occasion of morality, and so on. In the antipathy of 



2 24 ^^^^ Philosophy of the SMpernatMral. 

inverse correlation, the absence of one thing is the 
occasion not the cause for the presence of someotlier 
thing ; as, when religion is absent, immorality is pres- 
ent. Cause is power, and power acts where it is, but 
never where it is not. Cause is in the present, not 
in the past or the future. The absence of heat is the 
occasion of the presence of electricity. The going 
of one is the coming of the other. The movement 
is one of displacement and substitution. 

No satisfactory induction of the rules of morality 
can be made from any necessary relation of cause 
and effect ; because all causes are indefinite and make 
more indefinite effects; and because conduct is an 
act of a derived human Will, and as conduct, is not 
a cause ; and what follows is the discipline imposed 
by the underived, superhuman Will, and as discipline, 
is not an effect. These two orders of will, the human 
in conduct and the superhuman in discipline, we 
must admit, unless we assume that the human will is 
supreme in the universe and in both conduct and 
consequences. When Nature manifests no other 
Will, the superhuman Will is fixed in the constituted 
order of cause and effect. 

Having shown, as we think, that all evolution is 
necessary, and that all necessary evolution is without 
moral authority over either the conscience of con- 
duct, the instability of conduct, or the heterogeneity 
of conduct ; and that it is also without moral respon- 
sibility, for evolutionary conduct, evolutionary causes, 
or evolutionary effects, it remains only to state, under 
the present proposition, that 

All conduct called Natural Morality is a necessary 



Evolution Ignores Responsibility. 



225 



evolution ; and, therefore, as such, is without either 
moral authority or moral responsibility. Indeed this 
seems to be the opinion of Mr. Spencer himself, when 
he says : " Thinking of the extrinsic effects of a for- 
bidden act, excites a dread which continues present 
while the intrinsic effects of the act are thought of • 
and being thus linked with these intrinsic effects 
causes a vague sense of moral compulsion. Emere 
ing as the moral motive does but slowly from amidst 
the political, religious, and social motives, it lon^ 
participates in that consciousness of subordination to 
some external agency which is joined with them • 
and only as it becomes distinct and predominant 
does It lose this associated consciousness-only then 
does the feehng of obligation fade 

"This remark implies the tacit conclusion, which 
wi 1 be to most very startling, that the sense of 
duty or moral obligation is transitory, and will di 
minish as fast as moralization increases. Startling 
hough It IS, this conclusion may be satisfactorily de 
tended. Even now progress towards the implied ul- 
imate state is traceable. The observation is not in- 
frequent that persistence in performing a duty ends 
m making It a pleasure; and this amounts to the ad 

eTmeTt of'' "'"' ^' ""T ''' "^^'^ -"'^^ - 
element of coercion at last this element of coer 

c.on dies out, and the act is performed without any 

consciousness of being obliged to perform it. The 

contrast between the youth on whom diligence is 

affairs that he cannot be induced to relax, shows us 
how the doing of the work, originally under the 



2 26 The Philosophy of the Supernahtral. 



consciousness that it ought to be done, may event- 
ually cease to have any such accompanying con- 
sciousness. Sometimes, indeed, the relation comes to 
be reversed ; and the man of business persists in work 
from pure love of it when told that he ought not. Nor 
is it thus with self-regarding feelings only. That the 
maintaining and protecting of wife by husband often 
result solely from feelings directly gratified by these 
actions, without any thought of must; and that the 
fostering of children by parents is in many cases made 
an absorbing occupation without any coercive feeling 
ot ought; are obvious truths which show us that even 
now, with some of the fundamental other-regarding 
duties, the sense of obligation has retreated into the 
background of the mind. And it is in some degree 
so with other-regarding duties of a higher kind. Con- 
scientiousness has in many outgrown that stage in 
which the sense of a compelling power is joined with 
rectitude of action. The truly honest man, here and 
there to be found, is not only without thought of legal, 
religious, or social compulsion,when he discharges an 
equitable claim on hira ; but he is without thought of 
self-compulsion. He does the right thing with a sim- 
ple feeling of satisfaction in doing it ; and is, indeed, 
impatient if anything prevents him from having the 
satisfaction of doing it." (D. E., § 46.) 

Mr. Spencer looks forward to the time in the future 
of the race when, by its accumulated experiences, 
man will, as naturally as the sun-flower turns to the 
sun, adjust his conduct to right ends, He will do this 
not under what we now call authority, or the com- 
mand of any supernatural VVill, but as a physical func- 



Evolved Will is no Will 227 



tion. The words moral conduct, moral authority and 
moral responsibility will become obsolete, in the per- 
feet adjustment of acts to ends. 

All Morality without moral authority or moral re 
sponsibility, is no Morality ; all so-called Natural Mor- 
ality IS without moral authority or moral resposibil- 
ity ; therefore, all so-called Natural Morality is, in fact 
no morality. - > . 

According to the theory of materialistic evolution 
a nature is evolved unprescribed, and is necessary • 
all natural morality is, of course, under nature • all 
conduct under nature is necessary ; all necessary con- 
duct IS not free; all conduct that is not free, is not 
responsible ; and all conduct that is not responsible 
IS not moral conduct. ' 

But where is this necessity of natural evolution to 
begin, and where is it to end? Mr. Spencer speaks 
of "necessary consequences;" but how much neces- 
sity IS in the chain of antecedent causes .? If cause is 
an evolution, it is necessary as all else in evolution, for 
all evolution is necessary ; but, if cause is not neces- 
sary as an evolution, then evolution does not account 
for a 1 in the universe. The whole chain of causes and 
effects preceding conduct as an evolution, is under 
necessity, or nothing is under necessity and nothinsr 
is an evolution. How about free Will.? An evolved 
Will IS a necessary Will, or rather no Will From 
views of evolutionary nature-necessary nature-it 
IS clear that, as there is no Will in evolution, things 
must be as they are, and because Natural Morality is 
an evolution, it is, therefore, necessary. If so, whatever 
else evolved conduct may be called, it is a misnomer 



2 28 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



to call it Morality. Morality is free, and therefore, 
moral conduct. If not free, it is as automatic as the 
attraction of the sun, but it is not moral. 

4. Evolution must lie a supernatural method, rather 
than a natural process, in any scheme of possible mor 
ality. At the outset. Morality was said to be either 
evolved or prescribed, or evolved as prescribed. If 
morality is a natural evolution, and natural evolution 
is shown to be a necessary evolution, then natural 
morality is a necessary morality, or rather, no moral- 
itv. But if there is a morality at all, it must be free 
and not necessary conduct; if it be free and not nec- 
essary conduct, it cannot be a necessary evolution ; 
if it be not a necessary evolution it cannot be a natural 
evolution, for natural, impersonal evolution is neces- 
sary; if it be not a natural evolution, it must be a 
supernatural evolution, if it be an evolution at all. 

piyst.—P^ prescribed morality is free, not neces- 
sary ; and Morality is prescribed when it is neither 
accidental nor necessary. It is prescribed if, before 
acting, we are told how we ought to act. This w^e 
may be told directly, as an inspired written revela- 
tion ; or we may be told this indirectly, by reflecting 
upon the consequences of past acts. But whether we 
be told directly or indirectly, how we ought to act, 
before acting, we have our action none the less pre- 
scribed ; the rule of action must be prescribed to be 
the law of action. 

Let us look into the laws of matter, the knowledge 
of the mind, the constitution of nature, and the civil 
and social relations of mankind, and see if facts war- 
rant the induction, that, as there are no facts without 



Prescribed Morality is Free. 229 

a factor, tliere is a Factor in nature which nature is 
not. The belief in the supernatural has universally 
affected human conduct. Was the belief a delusion ? 
The world has wrought under the theistic conviction, 
as if It were true, and under this conviction, whether 
well founded or not, has been all true progress. 

What is called Natural Morality being necessary, 
IS not prescribed ; for, in a system of necessary nature! 
there is no one free to prescribe. Morality which is 
prescribed is free, not necessary ; for nature cannot 
prescribe or require free conduct of one of her own 
children not free to obey. 

We repeat, all prescribed Morality is free, as 
opposed to necessary morality ; because only a free 
power could prescribe, and only a free agent could 
obey. An unintelligent and impersonal nature can- 
not prescribe to an unintelligent and impersonal stone, 
that It must gravitate ; when, by a necessary nature,' 
It cannot help gravitating. For morality to be mor- 
ality, there must be moral freedom, and moral free- 
dom implies that each person is a law unto himself, 
01- that the laws are prescribed to him, which he is free 
to obey or disobey. If there is any morality which 
IS not natural morality and therefore not necessary, 
it must be supernatural morality, which is therefore 
free. 

It may be said that the conduct called natural mor- 
ality IS prescribed to the future by the consequences 
of past conduct-that the present sufferings of a 
burnt child prescribe to him a command to keep out 
of the fire in the future-in a word, that all painful 
experiences may be said to require men to do or not 



230 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



to do certain things. Persons may prescribe conduct 
to persons ; but impersonal nature can prescribe 
nothing. Mind prescribes to mind, not matter to mind 
or mind to matter. Morality is obedience of mind to 
mind, not the conformity of mind to matter. Obedi- 
ence is intelligent conformity of conduct to authori- 
tative command. Blind, unconscious action is not 
moral obedience. If moral conduct is the moral 
adjustment of moral acts to moral ends, who is the 
iVdjuster ? Adjustment implies anticipation ; antic- 
ipation implies intelligence ; and, if like is from like, 
intelligence in us implies its derivation from a higher 
intelligence. To anticipate the end from the begin- 
ning is to know the end from the beginning. OvXy 
omniscient Supernature can know all nescient nature. 

There can be no morality in necessary nature ; 
therefore, if moral conduct is either prescribed or 
supernatural, it must be both. So far as conduct is 
moral, it is prescribed ; and so far as prescribed, it 
must be supernatural; as natural evolution prescribes 
nothing. Evolution anticipates its work, or it does 
not. If it does not anticipate its work, then its work 
is only blind phenomena, implying neither obedient 
morality nor disobedient immorality. If it does 
anticipate its work, then evolution is supernatural and 
is only the method of the Anticipating Power; and 
what that Power prescribes is right, and what it pro- 
scribes is wrong. 

To agnostic Evolutionists, Nature is all, and all is 
necessary ; and, therefore, according to Prof. Hasckel 
and others, all is unplanned and unprescribed. Nec- 
essarv, and, therefore, not moral conduct, being 



Law is Will, 2^1 



unprescribed, of course, free, and therefore, moral 
conduct, is prescribed. As said before, all morality is 
evolved or prescribed. All evolved morality ignores 
all Will, and is necessary. All prescribed morality is 
free, and implies Will. Free conduct is free under 
law, not above it; and all law is prescribed. But what 
is Law? Beginning the study of nature with our- 
selves, we find that Law is Will ; Will is one, as the 
sun ; law many, as the rays ; as every ray is all sun, 
so every law is all Will. Will is eternal Power out- 
side of nature taking form as nature ; nature is visible 
Will. Those who deny that law is will, claim that law 
is a fact— not a cause— that it is a fact that like condi- 
tions produce like results. This fact, they say, is law. 
It has been said that the idea of law is pushing Will 
from the throne of the universe. 

But is the government of law more comprehensible 
than the government of Will ? The power that is 
uniform as law can be uniform as Will. Besides, 
uniformity is only an averaging of diversities. Uni- 
formity is as impossible as stability ; and, in the eter- 
nal instability of the homogeneous, there can be, 
according to evolution, no stability, and therefore no 
uniformity. Both uniformity and heterogeneity can- 
not be— if one is the other is not. But as to Law and 
Will, distinction of names is not a difference of power. 
Will is power. Supernatural Will is before, and in, 
all natural entities. Without will there can be no law. 
Law implies the uniformity of Will. 

Nor can there be law without a lawgiver. With no 
supernatural intelligence behind unintelligent nature, 
there is no certain basis for science ; for there can be 



232 The Philosophy of the Superfiatttral. 



no knowledge of future, unintended movements. All 
uniformity of law implies plan. Persistent repetition 
implies purpose and intention. Unless nature is in- 
telligent in the uniformity of to da}^ we have no 
intelligent certainty of what is claimed to be an unin- 
telligent uniform it}'- to-morrow. Is the uniformity of 
nature intentional or unintentional? If intentional it 
is a personal intention and therefore free ; if it is unin- 
tentional, the uniformity is impersonal, and is there- 
fore either necessary or accidental. But as uniform- 
ity to be uniformity can be neither accidental nor 
necessary, it must be intentional and therefore per- 
sonal. What is called impersonal law is only the uni- 
formity of diversities in personal Will. 

As relations and their incidental rights are not 
eternal, but derived, they must be derived from the 
Underived, which is eternal ; and that Underived is 
authority to all temporal things derived from it. If 
the Underived Power is thus older than the derived 
right commanded, then right is because it is com- 
manded, and is not commanded because it is right. 
If right is commanded because it is right, then right 
is underived, and existed as right before it was com- 
manded ; but right is not older than the relation to 
which it pertains, and in which relation it was derived 
and originated. If rights are derived, they are 
derived directly by command or indirectly in rela- 
tions. A derived relation expresses the Will of unde- 
rived Power. Without that Will the relations cannot 
be ; and with that Will all relations begin, with all 
incident and inherent rights. But the command or 
constitution of the relation is conceived before the 



The Sicpernatiiral Admitted, 235 



relation and its inherent rights exist. Without the 
command neither relation nor incident right exists. 

Second.— M\ supernatural morality is prescribed, 
because so-called natural morality is not prescribed 
but evolved ; and evolved morality, being natural, is 
therefore necessary. If all that is necessary is all 
that is natural, then, all that is free is all that is super- 
natural. Morality being impossible as a natural 
necessity, we shall see that it is possible only under 
a Supernatural Power. The Power that made the 
human mind can prescribe to the human mind. Has 
It done it? Is there a supernatural Power, and has 
It prescribed any law to Mental Phenomena? 

Mr. Spencer says (F. P., § 105) as we have seen, 
that -The progress of intelligence has throughout 
been dual. Though it has not seemed so to those 
who made it, every step in advance has been a step 
towards both the natural and the supernatural. All 
accountable or natural facts are proved to be, in their 
ultimate genesis, unaccountable and supernatural." 
If the ultimate genesis of all accountable and natural 
facts IS proved to be unaccountable and supernatural 
why IS not the ultimate genesis of the authority for 
moral conduct supernatural ? Does supernature re- 
strict Its moral manifestations to the natural con- 
stitution of things ? Supernature may talk by works 
as well as by words. A tree speaks for supernature 
as well as the words of a Prophet. 

The supernatural is admitted by Mr, Spencer as 
"absolutely certain." He says {Pop. Sci. Monthly, 
Jan., 1884), as we have seen and now repeat, ''Amid 
the mysteries which become more mysterious the 



2 34 The Philosophy of the SupernaturaL 

more they are thought about, there will remain the 
one absolute certainty that he (man) is ever in pres- 
ence of an Infinite and Eternal Energy from which 
all things proceed." Is this energy merely natural, 
and do " all things proceed " by evolution impersonal 
or personal, or by creation of a personal power? 
These questions are answered by Mr. Spencer, when 
he says, '* all accountable and natural facts are proved 
to be, in their ultimate genesis, unaccountable and 
supernatural y But, if *' all things proceed " by an 
■" ultimate genesis^' what becomes of a continuous 
evolution f or is evolution, in its beginning, a " gene- 
sis " ? The teaching of religion is, that "all things" 
are created, and then proceed by the power genetic- 
ally derived. 

We are compelled to admit a basis of things, and 
that basis, according to Mr. Spencer, is super- 
natural ; so, to exclude supernature from nature 
would involve the necessity to deny the basis of 
nature and so nature itself, which nature our senses 
affirm. Nature is the monogram of Supernature. 
Where anything is found, we find something super- 
natural, or the bodying forth of the supernatural. 
Religion simply adores as a Personal Presence, what- 
ever is admitted to be at the background of things, 
whether called cause — law — force — or Being. 

According to Mr. Spencer, " the natural and super- 
natural '' are '^ dual," and different not in degree but 
in kind ; therefore, if there be in nature that neces 
sity which is taught by both Mr. Spencer and Prof. 
Haeckel, then all necessity must be in nature, and 
none whatever in supernature ; for that which nature 



How does Super iiature Prescribe f 2 -» 



o:) 



is, supernature is not. If nature is under necessity 
and supernature is not, then Supernature is the only 
Power free to prescribe morality. 

The Supernatural Power and Person being proved, 
as we claim, we see that all moral conduct must be 
under its authority and responsible to its sovereignty. 
We are now prepared to show that so far as morality 
IS an evolution, it must be a supernatural morality, 
though a supernatural method of evolution ; if we 
may call it evolution. It is evident, as the opposite 
of necessary conduct, that moral conduct is conduct 
prescribed or required by some competent authority. 
Nature, according to Prof. H^ckel, prescribes noth- 
ing. Further: It has been said that we must have a 
morality claiming supernatural authority or one 
grounded in nature; but nothing is grounded in 
nature that has not supernatural authority. Natural 
morality is the exponent of supernatural authority, 
not of natural necessity. Nature is but the manu- 
script of supernature. Nature is the phenomenal 
side of nomenal supernature. Therefore so far as 
nature teaches a morality, it teaches under supernat- 
ural authority. Nature is an open letter, addressed 
to all who can read it. Nature is but inspired things, 
telling in their way what cannot be so well told in 
any other. But how does the Supernatural /r^^^rz^^ 
morality? How can the Infinite communicate with 
the Finite? We see the fact to be that like commu- 
nicates with like. By a sort of fixed inspiration 
called instinct, the human mother communicates with 
her offspring. The bird-mother, the brute-mother, 
and the human mother have no difficulty in making 



236 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

themselves sufficiently understood to their young. 
There is no difficulty in the Infinite making- itself 
understood and prescribing to the Finite ; Impersonal 
Facts prescribe as they are exponents of a personal 
Factor. A personal Factor may express his com- 
mands through his works as well as through his 
words. Works then become object-language. A 
Supernatural Person can talk through natural things, 
if he chooses to do so; the simple question is: Has 
he done so ? So far as nature is the foundation of 
morality, it prescribes it, 

(i) In Works. We learn from St. Paul (Rom. i., 
19), *'That which may be known of God is manifest 
in them ; for God hath shown it unto them. For the 
invisible things of him from the creation of the world 
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that 
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so 
that they are without excuse." Beside God's reveal- 
ing manuscript in Nature, there was a code of moral 
law given to the conscience of each man. God, at 
one time ''suffered all nations to walk in their own 
wavs ; nevertheless he left not himself without wit- 
ness, in that he did good and gave us rain from 
heaven and fruitful seasons." (Acts xiv., 17.) St. 
Paul says, '' When the Gentiles, which have not the 
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, 
these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; 
which show the works of the law, written in their 
hearts ; their conscience also bearing witness, and 
their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excus- 
ing one another." (Rom. ii., 12). " The heavens de- 
clare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth 



God tises no Particidar Language. 237 



his hanrliwork. One day telleth another and one night 
certifieth another. There is neither speech nor 
language; but their voices are heard among them. 
Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their 
words unto the ends of the world." (Ps. 19, 1-4.) 

(ii) In Words. The Bible is written in the lan- 
guage of man, interpreting what God says in His 
works, and in the events of the world. There are 
worlds ; what do they say ? There are events ; what 
do they mean? The prophet, lawgiver, or philoso- 
pher, or priest, is the one who reads the doings of 
God, with infallible correctness. God uses no words 
of any language. But what He does is what He 
says. Creation is the language of God. Moses was 
moved by God (who certainly knew how to move the 
mind of a creature of His hand) to tell, in his own 
Hebrew words and style, what God did say, from 
what He had done, and was doing. St. Paul inter- 
preted God, using the Greek tongue. J^ewton told 
what God had done and was doing in gravitation, 
using the English tongue. So that God is truly and 
fully interpreted, it matters not what tongue is used. 
God uses none that man uses. God's teaching is 
object-teaching. A star, a leaf, a death, means the 
same to a Gentile as to a Hebrew ; though each gives 
to each thing a different name. The Prophet is so 
near to God as to understand Him— the godly under- 
stand God. We cannot read writing beyond the focus 
of our vision. Distance from Him, as from all else, 
blurs the writing we seek to read. Nature is the 
materialized language of Supernature — the divine 
pantomime of Time. Some facts speak louder than 



238 The Philosophy of the Sttper natural, 

some words. Science reads in nature the divine 
hieroglyphics of the message of all that nature is not. 

As there is will in the universe, Supernature must 
prescribe its own mind and Will to Nature ; for 
nature, being necessary, has no will of its own. The 
larger imparts to the smaller. The whole includes the 
parts, as Supernature includes nature. Nature ever 
increases or decreases. To decrease persistently is 
to cease to be. To increase, is from within itself or 
without. To increase from within itself is to be 
superior to itself, and to produce something from 
nothing. All increase of nature from without, is from 
supernature. The natural is ever the unbroken evo- 
lution of the supernatural. 

Modern Scientists in attributing uniformity called 
law to the operations of Power, deny its personal 
Will, and call it nature ; and all religions, in attribu- 
ting a personal Will to Power, deny its uniformity', 
and call it supernature or God. 

It is claimed that " all laws shall be conformed to 
natural morality ;" but, if our argument has been 
valid, there is no natural moralit3^ What is the Power 
behind Natural Morality, by which it is Natural 
Moralit}' ? The authority, if any, for all morality, is 
in some supernatural Will, whether supernaturally 
revealed in Scripture or naturally revealed to mere 
reason in the deductions of experience, or by the 
inductions as to what is right and wrong in '' the 
necessar}^ consequences" of actions. Morality is not 
merely natural morality because nature manifests the 
consequences of immorality. Natural testimony is 
not natural power. The witness is not the Court. In 



Sttpematural Morality is Free. 230 



supernatural Power, natural morality and supernat- 
ural morality are the same. Nature is only a mani- 
festation of supernature. Is there an evolving power 
above evolution manifested through evolution ? That 
is the simple question. In other words, is natural 
morality prescribed by supernatural power? 

Mr. Spencer says : '' It must be either admitted or 
denied that the acts called good and the acts called 
bad, naturally conduce, the one to human well-being 
and the other to human ill-being. Is it admitted^" 
(''Data of Ethics," § 18.) If so, what then? Acts 
that naturally conduce to any results, must have power 
naturally so to conduce ; that power is either derived 
or underived ; if underived, it is Supernatural Power 
(God), acting directly as nature, as the ancient poly- 
theists and nature-worshipers thought ; if derived, it 
must be derived from the Underived, or is Supernat- 
ural Power (God) acting indirectly as nature, as some 
theistic scientists now think. 

Therefore if, as we claim to have proved, the Factor 
in law is supernatural Will ; if the energies of the mind 
are supernatural in its present and future attainments, 
moving from nescience towards omniscience; if the 
science of nature reveals a power in nature for which 
nature cannot account ; if the theistic idea works out 
in civil society as the surest civilizer, we claim. 

Third. Therefore, as all supernatural Morality is 
free, there can be no natural or necessary morality. 
There is nothing necessary in the universe, if there is 
any free will in it. 

If evolution covers mind as well as matter, it must 
be because matter becomes mind, or because mind is 



240 The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 

as necessary as matter. But the moral system is 
something that the material system is not. The ma- 
terial system of evolution is government without a 
Governor — it is intelligent work without intelligence 
in the worker. But such conclusions are not consist- 
ent with known facts and phenomena. Will in its 
work cannot be accounted for as mentalized matter. 
For this Will, Supernatural Power, Mr. Spencer says : 
^* Right, as we can think it, necessitates the thought 
of not right, or wrong, for its correlation ; and hence, 
to ascribe rightness to the acts of the Power mani- 
fested through phenomena, is to assume the possibility 
that wrong acts may be committed by this Power. 
But how came this to exist, apart from this Power, 
conditions of such kind that subordination of its acts 
to them makes them right, and insubordination wrong ? 
How can Unconditioned Being be subject to condi- 
tions beyond itself ?" (" Data of Ethics," Ch.xv.,§99.) 
Unconditioned Being is not subject to conditions 
beyond itself. We cannot ascribe rightness to the acts 
of the Power manifested through phenomena, and 
therefore by no possibility can wrong acts be com- 
mitted by this Power. Whatever this power, mani- 
fested through phenomena, may do, is sovereign, and 
so is neither right nor wrong. Right is obedience to 
sovereign authority ; and wrong is disobedience to 
sovereign authority, but sovereign authority can 
neither obey nor disobey itself. But why admit the 
Power and deny the intelligence manifested through 
phenomena? And, if we admit the intelligence, why 
deny the Will; and if we admit the Will, why deny 
the personality, and if we admit the personality, why 
deny God? 



No Assortment of Moralities. 



241 



Is a supernatural method suitable to Will, quite 
different from its method in matter that has no will of 
Its own? The moral system is based on commands 
prescribed by superhuman Will to a human Will In 
the material system, there are no prescriptions or com- 
mands, but work is done without commands. There 
are no commands, because there is no ear to hear 
commands, and no Will to obey or disobey commands 
11 the materialistic system, which is the system of 
evolution, be the true and only one of the universe 
then the material nature did a useless work in evolv' 
ing human Will. 

But in accepting either natural or supernatural 
morahty, both are accepted ; for nature and superna- 
ture are as inseparable as sunshine and shadow The 
rose without the sun in its color, and in its perfume 
IS no onger the rose. Without supernature, nature 
IS no longer nature. 

There is no assortment of moralities. If, according 
to Prof. H^ckel and Mr. Spencer, nature is necessary 
and has no plan, then, as plan in nature, must be 
supernatural to nature, all evolution-all evolution of 
moral conduct-with method or plan, or, in the lan- 
guage of Mr. Spencer, with " adjustment of acts to 
ends -^vIth purpose, with Will-must be supernat- 
ural. Do we observe any plan in nature ? If evolu 
tionary conduct be not natural and therefore neces 
sary, It must be supernatural and therefore free 

Morality is possible only through freedom under a 
supernatural Will, revealed in written form, or devel- 
oped in the consequences of conduct, or in both If 
It be admitted, that, it is only under supernatural 



242 The Philosophy of the Supernahiral. 



authority, that acts commonly called good, and acts 
commonly called bad, naturally tend, the one to hu- 
man well-being and theother to human ill-being, there 
will be no disagreement. It is not that morality is an 
evolution, but only as that evolution is denied to be a 
supernatural method, that the disagreement arises. 
Natural evolution is a mere process, without author- 
ity or responsibility, and cannot possibly evolve a 
morality. To supernatural evolution only, as a method 
of Will, is a morality possible. As Nature according 
to Prof. Hasckel, being necessary and without method 
or plan, prescribes nothing, so all prescribed conduct 
must be supernatural. 

We have said, that there is no Natural Morality ; 
for, if Nature is all, then all is natural, whether it be 
conduct commonly called good or conduct commonly 
called bad ; and Nature does not hold man respon- 
sible to nature for conduct which Nature prompts. 
But if Nature is not all, then all that nature is not, is 
Supernature, and is authority to Nature for all the 
conduct required of man, and is also the Power for all 
the phenomena of Nature. Supernature to be Super- 
nature must be authority to require of IS'ature, what 
Supernature may determine. Nature is the Fact, 
Supernature is the Factor. 

If what is called Natural Morality, is not required 
or prescribed by supernatural authority, and if nat- 
ural morality must have an authority, and nature can 
be no authority unto itself, then there can be no nat- 
ural morality. That which is called Natural Moral- 
ity, has, in fact, a supernatural authority, if any, and 
is ultimately, a Supernatural Morality. Supernatural 



Natural Morality as Natural Evolution. 



243 



morality is none the less supernatural because it has 
natural methods and verifications. Natural Morality 
must have either no authority, or a natural authority 
or a supernatural authority. To say that natural 
morality has no authority, is to say, that it is neces- 
sary, and IS therefore no morality. To say that nat- 
ural morality has a natural authority, is to say that 
conduct IS an authority unto itself, which is impossible 
To ^ say that Natural Morality has a supernatural 
autnonty, is to say that with a supernatural authority 
It IS supernatural, and not natural morality 

Natural Morality as a natural evolution, i. a neces- 
sity, and there is no authority in necessity and there 
fore no morality. We first meet authority, when we 
first meet personality, in all human associations Im 
personal authority is a conventional arrangement and 
not an essential reality. Though, in philosophical 
discussion, traditional opinion of minds ever so em- 
inent is not argument ; yet it is significant, of the idea 
of the fundamental constitution of things, that nearly 
all who have professed a belief in what, in any sense 
might be called Natural Morality, have also been 
believers in a Supernatural Authority, behind it A 
supernatural Person has, almost universally, been 
admitted to exercise ultimate personal authority over 
impersonal nature. 

Mr. Spencer stops at nature, where science stops 
He does not deny supernature, but affirms it • but he 
announces no specific trace of it in Nature. He admits 
a phenomenal connexion between what he admits of 
supernature and what he knows of nature. The both 
are, and he admits that all accountable and natural 



244 T^^^ Philosophy of the SttpernahiraL 



facts are proved to be in their ultimate genesis, unac- 
countable and supernatural, and there he firmly stops. 
To draw the inferences from what he admits of super- 
nature, furnishes the proof of the religious supernat- 
ural person — GOD. 

Natural and Supernatural morality are two names 
for the same moral economy of one power. That 
morality which is verified in natural conseqences, is 
authorized in supernatural law or Will. This one 
Power of the universe, stereotypes the rules of what 
some call natural morality in *' the constitution of 
things," as well as specially reveals them in human 
utterances. The evolutionary school of thought rec- 
ognizes only the physical basis and an impersonal 
power; but how it can afhrm the power and deny the 
intelligence, or how human personality can deny 
superhuman personality, is inexpKcable. If like is 
from like, then the fact of personality in man implies 
a personal Factor of that personality. With religion, 
a personal power and intelligence gives the law of 
conduct, and adapts upon its violation, such conse- 
quences as it may determine, and, though the systems 
of manifestations may be two, there is but one mor- 
ality. Now, whether this one morality should be called 
natural or supernatural, depends upon the answer to 
the questions : Do we admit the supernatural any 
where, and what is its relation to nature, and what 
control has it over conduct? Has morahty any 
authority of law or not? If not, how is it morality ? 
If it has any authority of law, is that law natural or 
supernatural? Authority is the control of an inferior 
by a superior. Nature, therefore, must be under the 



What is Moral Law ? 245 



control of supernature or be under no control ■ for 
It cannot be superior to itself and so control itself or 
be inferior to itself and put itself under the control 
of Itself, or make its own laws inexorably unalterable 
over Itself ; for if it made its own laws, it can repeal 
or suspend its own laws. If nature is thus its own 
lawgiver, it is superior to itself, which is impossible 
iivery human act is either necessary or not neces- 
sary. If necessary, it is no more morally responsible 
than the necessary phenomena of gravitation or of 
electricity. If not necessary, the act is moral. For 
every moral act there is a moral law and a moral con- 
sequence. The moral law /r^scribes what the moral 
consequence of conduct will be, and the moral conse- 
quence .t^/fecribes or testifies what the moral law is 
. Law implies consequence, and consequence implies 
law— one looks to the other. 

Now, if moral consequences are from moral law 
rom what is moral law ? As the universe is under 
law, so law ,s over the universe. In other words, 
trom Supernature must come the laws of Nature 
1 herefore, the natural consequences of a moral act 
prove the supernatural authority of the moral law.' 
All will agree to a natural morality which manifests 
a supernatural authority. 

We call morality supernatural when we fix our 
attention upon, and magnify the supernatural law 
and lose sight of the natural consequences of con- 
duct; and we call morality natural morality, when 
we fix our attention upon, and magnify the natural 
consequences of conduct, and lose sight of the super- 
natural law. For instance, the natural consequences 



246 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



of drunkenness is disease — it naturally tends to the 
ill-being of the drunkard. From these consequences, 
the law is deduced that drunkenness is wrong. One 
says that this law is a natural law because testified to 
by what is called nature. Another says, that all 
natural laws are but an expression of supernatural 
authority. In fact, all nature is the objective side of 
supernature. Certainly, if the consequences of 
of conduct are natural, the law by which conse- 
quences are consequences, must be supernatural: 
for the law must be above the consequences of its 
violation. That is authority to another which has 
power over that other; and, thus, in the power of 
supernature over nature, it is authority to nature. 
The supernatural, in the sense of eternal intelligence, 
justice and power, does not command things because they 
are right, but things are right because commanded by the 
supernatural. We are accustomed to speak of things 
as eternally right or wrong in the nature of things. 
But the supernatural only is eternal; and nothing 
was either right or wrong before supernaturally con- 
stituted. Rights and wrongs belong to relations; 
but relations are neither eternal nor unchangeable. 
Therefore, the Absolute Being we call God, having 
no relations, cannot, except in an accommodation of 
terms, be said to be either right or wrong. To be 
one implies the possibility, at some time, of being 
the other; but, as the Absolute by no possibility 
could be wrong, so by no possibility could the Abso- 
lute be right: In a word, the Absolute, excluding all 
relations, is entirely apart from all rights and wrongs 
of relations, and there are rights and wrongs no 



Rights Relative, not Absolute. 247 



where else than in relations. Obedience and disobe- 
dience, reverence and irreverence, holiness and un- 
holiness, are quite different states. We must look 
for knowledge of right and wrong to supernatural 
authority, however attested. 

There can be no relation between the concrete and 
the abstract— between the noumenon and the phe- 
nomena—between Power and the shapes it manifests. 
Relations are either personal or impersonal. Imper- 
sonal relations reveal only impersonal forces. There 
can be no moral relations of right and wrong between 
the acorn and the oak— between the falling stone and 
the man it kills— between any merely physical cause 
and its merely physical effect. 

Personal relations of men to man primarily reveal 
what are the laws of the relations, and what are called 
their rights and wrongs. These personal relations are 
either mutual or reciprocal. Rights and wrongs come 
and go with these personal relations. The laws of the 
relation are fixed in the relation. The relation re- 
veals that as right which never was a right or a wrong 
before. As the relation so are the correlative rights 
and wrongs. The question is, was it right or wrong 
to establish the relation? Did Power establish rela- 
tions because they were right, or were relations x'l^ht 
because they were established by Power? It was 
neither right nor wrong for Power to establish what 
It did establish. Shall the clay say to the potter, why 
has thou made me? 

God never made a right or a wrong except as He 
made it in a relation. He made man a creature of 
relations, and gave power to man to act; and man's 



248 The Philosophy of the SupernatMral. 

acts are right as they consist with the relation, and 
wrong as they do not. Under delegated power an 
agent may misuse his power; but the guilt is in the 
misuse of the power, not in its bestowment. Physical 
ills may or may not be connected with moral guilt. 
Moral action is only human and individual. Moral 
guilt is human conduct violative of human relations 
to man and to God, and duty to himself. What are 
called rights and wrongs are names we give to hu- 
man actions in human relations. All that is from God 
in these actions is the power to act, and the persuasion 
to act for the ends of the relation. We cannot call 
the stroke of the lightning right, nor can we call it 
wrong. Nor can we call the destructions of the whirl- 
wind right, nor can we call them wrong. Nor can 
we call the bite of beast or reptile wrong, nor disease 
nor pain, nor death, wrong. There is no right and 
no wrong to the action of impersonal forces or to the 
inevitable; but there is right or wrong as we act 
according to the prescribed laws of our relations. 
Rights and wrongs go no further. God appoints the 
relations, and we do right or wrong in them. Wrong 
is something purely of human will. Superhuman 
Will has nothing to do with the origin of wrong. It 
is the act of created Will first, last and all the time. 
If men could be regenerated into gods, there would 
be no wrongs, and rights would be known as condi- 
tions, not as rights. 

President Noah Porter says (Moral Science § 46) : 
'' Moral distinctions are not originated by the arbi- 
trary j^^/ or will of the Creator T Why not? Are these 
moral distinctions older than the Creator? Moral 



Mala Prohibita, Mala in se. 



249 



distinctions originate in moral relations, but who 
established the relations ? Moral distinctions are not 
eternal— not older than the relations to which they 
pertain. They are not of the nature or being of God, 
for they pertain alone to relations, and God'^is Abso- 
lute., not relative. Municipal law for municipal ends, 
distinguishes between 7?tala in se and mala prohibita. 
But all wrongs are mala prohibita, express or implied ; 
and may be mala in se, because they are mala prohibita. 
All human actions essential to human relations are 
imposed by the very relations themselves ; and the 
constitution of the relation in itself prohibits its dis- 
regard. New relations are new laws. Law is in the 
relation. The evolution of human experience is codi- 
fy mg the lex non scripta of human relations. From all 
this we conclude that rights and wrongs are exclu- 
sively in human relations ; and rights are right because 
they are established, and not established because they 
are rights. The establishment of rights and wrongs 
m human relations was a manifestation of absolute 
sovereignty. The absolute owes no rights and can do 
no wrong, for the Absolute is antecedent to all spheres 
of the relative. Divinely appointed self-preservation 
and self-perfection and progress, are the end of all 
rights, and in themselves the implied Prohibition of 
all as wrong that prevents these ends. 

Conventional morality or the avoidance of conven- 
tional mala prohibita, is the obedience of individuals 
to society. What we here call conventional morality 
may be essentially immoral, in arbitrarily forbidding 
two relative rights as if they were wrong, or in com- 
manding wrongs as if they were social rights. Mala 
prohibita are not always 7nala in se. Mala in se are vio- 



250 The Philosophy of the Step er natural. 

lations of the ends of divinely appointed relations ; 
while mala prohibita are violations of the ends of 
socially appointed relatives. Their guilt is measured 
by the authority disobeyed. We must remember that 
might does not make right. Only supernatural author- 
ity, whether express or implied, direct or indirect, 
can constitute the act in a relation as right, and con- 
sequently forbid an act as a wrong. God's will only, 
is right. 

Finally, all free Morality is responsible ; all super- 
naturally prescribed Morality is free, therefore all 
supernaturally prescribed Morality is responsible. All 
responsible conduct is prescribed Morality ; all super- 
naturally prescribed conduct is responsible conduct ; 
therefore, all supernaturally prescribed conduct is 
Morality. 

Again ; take a thousand years, say from the begin- 
ninof of the secularization of law in the Twelve Tables, 
B. C. 500, down to the close of the Schools under Jus- 
tinian, A. D. 530, and the Fall of the Empire, and we 
see that the human will as evolved and adjudicated 
as natural morality and as a center of political life, 
had been moving to its maximum ; and also, sad to say, 
to its long sleep in the mental prostration of the Dark 
Ages. After the Superhuman Will opened the doors 
of light, civilization awoke to a new dawn and a new 
life. Final progress is in the persistent supremacy of 
Superhuman Will. 

The following tables and figure show the evolution 
and correlation of ancient religions, ancient philo- 
sophy, and ancient Roman Civil law, for over 1,000 
years ; by these we may see at a glance, the great 
factors working to the great results exhibited. 



A Thousand Years of Civil Law, 



251 





fl 




si 




S 




u 








l-H 
1-3 


Ci 


« 




t) 


d 


Ch 


<u 


1=] 




tf 


■o 




<tf 






(^ 


>-H 




« 


* 
+= 


s 


S 


H 




<) 


f" 


t> 


t 






CO • 
l> • 

mil 

. ■•-» © 

■is taS 



. o 
: o 

^^ 

S o 

eg 

hi: u 
^® 
uA 

o c 



03 



« « 0-5 . 83 a> 

.... ^ 

iH ej CO ■* 10 tc t-^ O 










1000 Years of Law. 




KU^\^>^'\ ^^W^^^^>^\\JC, 



•itqdosonqci JO Sub©a OOOI 







a 
o 

OS 

O 

a 
a, 






■ u 

A? ■ 



" mrrt ® OQ * OT fl» ^, _ «^ 













t-s * os-iro 



0.3-; 



12; 

h- 1 

a 
o 

Q 

O 



O 
o 






NATURE. 



'ii ■< < N a <J di O O CL, (1, Oi 
MAN. 






J 

oi 

a: 
o 

"C 
V 

3i 

c 

m 

« 

.£3 

a 
o 



10 









O 

.a 

-a 
o 



ID 
« 

.13 
a 
o 



— p ~i 

!? ft S 

Oh H d, 



■3 
o 






03 

a 

o 
o 



■a 

n 
O 






^ fl 

o I 
.fl <i-i 

O T3 

o 



o 

o 

■s 






CO 

<1 






i 



252 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

This table exhibits the utter insufficiency of what 
is called natural morality, evolved in the unin- 
spired moral wisdom of the Philosophers and the 
Jurisconsults, as against the supernatural morality of 
Moses and the Messiah. Never before or since has 
the morality of human wisdom without religion been 
so signally tried, and never has it so signally failed. 
Not that the Justinian Codes were without value. 
As adjucated civil morality, they have been unsur- 
passed ; and their value, warmed and enlightened by 
a great religion, has been great ; but nothing merely 
human is sufficient. ^' Our sufficiency is of God." 

From shining star to lowly grassy sod, 

Is naught but forms unfolded by a God. 

Like deepest shadows cast by brightest day, 

All evolution is His veiled way. 

For Supernature, fixed in nature's laws, — 

That brings effects from out itself, the cause, — 

Evolves small things from great, not great from small; 

For God it is who worketh all in all. 



LECTURE V. 



METHOD OF CORRELATION. 

Everything is related, but everything is not corre- 
lated. Without mutuality or reciprocity there is a 
mere relation in time and space between a stone and 
a chair or between a mountain and a star ; but there 
IS correlation when, by a fixed law, things follow as 
consequences in cause and effect, or co-exist in pairs 
as husband and wife, or as uniform sequence in light 
and darkness. In other words, correlation is either 
a method, a state, or a movetnent. 

r. Correlation as a method. The most terrible cer- 
tainty in all the economy of nature is the law of 
equivalence. Correlation is its method, which we 
are now to consider. The light of science that reveals 
the behaviour of forces in matter also unveils and 
emphasizes the awful law of moral exchanges. For 
so much wrong, we get an equivalent of sufferin<r 
but if we measure the moral magnitude of the cau^e 
by the multiplicity of its effects, and their undyine 
continuance, we shall see that though a cause is only 
one thing, it is vast. In physics, we can see so much 
of one force given for another; but in moral move- 



254 T^^ Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

ments the equivalence of a wrong is never full. Men 
reap one hundred grains for the one they sow. That 
which we measure to others, they measure to us 
again ; good measure, pressed down, and running 
over, is surely returned to us. 

The nature of things, as seen in correlation, admits 
of no escape. Nature may heel the wound you make, 
but she will mark its place with a scar. If you injure 
moral character, like footprints in the snow, it can 
never be smooth again. The one sin of woman has 
its equivalence in an outcast's life. The law of hered- 
ity perpetrates ancestral disease to remote genera- 
tions. Men erect for themselves moral tombs or 
moral thrones, and each act is a block in the struc- 
ture built without hands. Consequences are remorse- 
less demons ; and, as has been so beautifully said, are 
as much beyond our control as are a handful of 
feathers which you scatter to the winds. 

2. Correlation as a state. Things are related as 
unconnected parts of a connected whole, such as is 
the relation of sea, house, tree ; or they are corre- 
lated, as we have said, into co-existing and insepara- 
ble pairs. Heraclitus taught that nothing exists 
without its contrary, and that to speak of one is to 
suggest its opposite. Pythagoras and Aristotle men- 
tion ten of these pairs : 

Finite and Infinite, Rest and Motion, 

Odd and Even, Straight and Crooked, 

Unity and Plurality, Light and Darkness, 

Male and Female, Good and Bad, 

Right and Left, Square and Oblong. 



Cor7^elation as a Movement. 



255 



These- co-existing pairs are sometimes of persons as 
husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and 
ward, master and servant, vendor and vendee buyer 
and seller, and mortgagor and mortgagee ; sometimes 
m pairs of co-existing forms, as concavity and con- 
vexity ; or of quantity, as much and little, plus and 
minus; or of attributes, as straight and crooked • or 
of direction, as up and down. Thus we see that in 
correlative states, pairs of dissimilar things must co- 
exist, and that the mention of one of the pair suggests 
the existence of the other. The husband ceases to 
be husband when the wife dies. Without a child 
there can be no parent, without a servant no mas- 
ter. Take away one of two parallel lines, and the 
other IS no longer a parallel, as a line cannot be par- 
allel to Itself. As the describing of a curved line 
makes one side concave and the other convex so the 
obhteration of that curved line obliterates both the 
concavity and the convexity. Forces are in accord 
or in discord with each other. Accordant forces are 
in direct correlation ; discordant forces are in inverse 
correlation. 

3. Correlation as a movement is where one thing is 
as its correlative is, like labor and wages ; or one 
thing IS as another is not, like right and wrong 
Correlation is either direct or inverse. 

{a) Direct correlation is seen when any two quan- 
tities, qualities, or forces mutually increase or de- 
crease together in the same ratio. Thus wages vary 
directly as work; that is, the greater the work the 
greater the wages, and the less work, the less wages - 
This is illustrated by the two opposite and equal tri- 



256 The Philosophy of the Stipernatttral. 



angles, formed by the perpendicular line A C, in the 
square A B C D, in the figure below.'' 

(i) In matter force it is a demonstrated principle 
that action and reaction are equal and opposite. Exactly 
as your finger presses the table, the table presses 
your finger. That which you strike, strikes you 
back. If you disappoint the moral sense of society, 
the moral sense of society will disappoint you. As 



(a) In this law of direct correlation, the forces are in accord — both are 
positive or phis or boih are negative or minus — the minimum of one 
is the minimum of its correlative, and the maximum of one is as the max- 
imum of its correlative ; both increasing or decreasing in the same ratio. 
Read across the figure from left to right. Notice, that the perpendicular 
of the square, standing on one of its angles, is the diagonal of the square 
on one of its sides, as in Fig. 2. 

DIRECT CORRELATION. 



Fig. I. 



Minimum. 



Action, 

Labor, 

Energy, 

Gravitation 

Credit, 

Religion. 



Maximum. 



Action, 
Labor, 

Energy, 
Gravitation 
Credit, 
Religion. 



Minimum. 




Minimum. 



Reaction, 

Wages, 

Work, 

Mass, 

Debit, 

Morality. 



Maximum . 



Reaction, 

Wages, 

Work, 

Mass, 

Debit, 

Morality. 



Minimum. 



Inverse Correlation. 2^7 



your hand warms the marble, so the marble cools 
your hand. The gun with which you kill the bird 
before it, recoils and bruises you behind it We 
cannot electrize a substance without magnetizing- it 
nor magnetize a substance without electrizing it' 
Before the laws of matter everything is equal Na 
ture enforces obedience. Every atom protects itself 
instantly arresting, judging, and punishing each ol 
fender against its rights. Man cannot lie to Nature 
nor extort upon her, nor rob her. Her motto is' 
semper fidehs, semper paratus. ' 

(ii) In moral forces this direct correlation is no 
ess evident. These antitheses and syntheses of 
forces are seen in the movement of demand and 
supply ; in credit and debt ; and in cause and effect 
Some things are inverse as to one movement and 
direct as to another. For instance, religion is inverse 
as to immorality, and direct as to morality. Labor 
IS inversely as to poverty, but directly as to wages 
Velocity IS directly as to force, and inversely as to 
time. Law is inversely as to morality, but directly 
as to crime. Civilization, generally, is directly as to 
worship and knowledge and inversely as to ieno 
ance and irreligion. Passion correlates itself in a 
corresponding expression. Anger is violent, grief 
weeps, pleasure smiles, and hope rejoices. Persecu 
tion and oppression beget resistance, and injury cor- 
re ates itself m revenge. The more alcohol the more 
IS the intoxication. Food correlates itself in strength 
llrT^'''' d^bts to the sun, in its perfumefnd 
CO or. Vice has its exact equivalent in loss of char- 
acter, and known fraud, in loss of credit and business 



258 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



{b) Inverse correlation ^ is where dissimilar quali- 
ties or forces are so related that when one is increased 
by any law of change, the other shall equivalently 
decrease by the same law. The purpose of this lec- 
ture is to show, through the laws of inverse correla- 
tion or conversion, how one force seems to become 
or be converted iitto another. The process is rather 
displacement and substitution than conversion. It is 
transposition as distinguished from transmutation, but 
it is substitution rather than either. It is one thin^ 
for another. But as in direct correlation neither of 
the co-existing pairs we have mentioned can be absent 
at the same time, so now, in inverse correlative move- 
ment, both reciprocal energies cannot be present at 
the same moment. 

This illustrates how the many effects of the one 



{a) INVERSE CORRELATION. 



Read across the figure. 



Fig. 2. 



Minimum manifesta- 
tions of human self- 
will in human con- 




■ ^ 


Maximum direction of 
human conduct by 
superhuman will. 


duct. 


















9A 


Its CoiTelation. 


Any Force. 








t% 






§1 

— 


^w 




A 3 


Velocity. 


Resistence. 
Religion. 


c a. 

^ 3 

■ Bi 

B 






OS 


Immorality. 




3 






Minimum direction of 


Maximum of human 
self-will in human 
conduct, and maxi- 


=g) 




hu 
sui 
an( 
mo 


man conduct by 
jerhuman will, 
1 maximum of im- 


mum ot immorali Li' . ' 




rality. 



When the square of Fig. i, marked A 
C D, the line that was a perpendicular from 
from A to C as in Fig. 2. 



BCD, is placed upon its side 
A to C in Fig. i, is a diagonal 



Shakespeare s Correlation. 259 



Power, that seem to us to conflict, do not conflict to 
Power itself. Power is one ; its manifestations are 
many. That which to us is plurality in nature is, 
some how, unity in supernature. The same thing is 
different in different views. Correlations that are 
direct or inverse to us are not so to correlating 
Power. Relativity is a law of doubles : two cross 
hues make four angles. It does not require one act 
to make one side of a curved line convex and another 
act to make the other side concave ; the opposite 
sides are made by one act. For instance, matter inte- 
grates as motion dissipates : that is, the integration 
of matter is plus as the dissipation of motion is plus • 
but it IS just as true to say, that the integration of 
matter is plus, just as the absorption of motion is 

1^-7 nit c 



minus. 



Herbert Spencer says that " one force, in giving- 
origin to the next, is itself expanded or ceases to 
exist as suchr When the lower chamber of the hour- 

Shakespeare expresses this correlation, in the play of "Coriolanus" 
when Aufidius says : 

" One fire drives out one fire ; one nail, one nail ; 
Rights by rights foiled, strengths by strengths do fail " 
Benvolio tells Romeo : 

"One fire burns out another's burning ; 

One pain is lessened by another's anguish ; 
Turn giddy, and be holp by backward turning ; 
One desperate grief cures with another's languish. 
Take thou some new infection to thine eye, 
And the rank poison of the old will die " 
Lear tells Kent : 

" Where the greater malady is fixed. 
The lesser is scarce felt." 
And so Virgil, when he says, " Una avulso non deficit alter • Where 
one thmg is absent, another takes its place." 



26o The Philosophy of the Supeimatural. 



glass is full the upper is empty. We must be careful 
to remember that the force which expires may be a 
cause or only an antecedent to the one that sur- 
vives or takes its place. We cannot say that that 
causes electricity, but only that so much of one goes 
as so much of the other comes. When a virtuous 
man is perverted into a vicious man, his virtues are 
not a cause of his vices ; or when a vicious man is 
converted into virtue, his vices are not a cause of his 
virtues. When day precedes the night, the day is 
not the cause of the night, nor night an effect of 
the day because it follows the day. The horse is 
not a cause of the cart because it is before it, nor 
the cart an effect of the horse because it follows the 
horse. Substitution is not causation. Sequences are 
not consequences. But there is a correlative move- 
ment in the dropping of the sand in the hour glass, 
from the upper chamber to the lower ; unless one be 
emptied, the other cannot be filled. The chain that 
pulls up a full bucket lets down an empty one. The 
rod dropped from the hand of Moses became a ser- 
pent on earth. Exactly as one, so was the other. The 
unknown quantity of the equation is ever transfer- 
ring or correlating itself into the known. Ignorance 
shrinks as knowledge expands. Both in the material 
and moral world, when one thing is more, something 
else is exactly that much less. The force is the same, 
the manifestation only is different. 

(i) In matter force this inverse correlation takes 
place when one unconscious force exchanges itself 
for another, and acts inversely as the other ceases. 
Herbert Spencer says, that '' when a given force 



Light Correlates with Shadow, 261 



ceases to exist under one form, an equal quantity 
must come into existence under some other form or 
forms." You cannot both expend and keep a force 
The butterfly begins to live as the mother-worm dies* 
In the revolutions of the wheel, one part cannot 
come up except as the other parts go down. The 
gram of wheat is quickened as it dies. Water level- 
ing Itself from one vessel to another decreases its 
quantity m one exactly as it increases it in the other 
Increasing light contracts but intensifies the shadows 
In other words, the maximum of one manifestation 
of force coincides with the minimum of its correla- 
tive force. If you gain motion you lose heat, and as 
you gam heat you lose motion. Though nature is 
always in debt, yet she keeps a careful balance-sheet 
with exact and scrupulous honesty, returning what 
she borrows, and paying for what she consumes. 
In agriculture, you must restore to the soil an equiv- 
alent for that which you take from it. If nature 
uses neat, she pays in electricity or some other force- 
if she dissipates motion, she compensates by integrat' 
ing matter. In all action she pays by equal and op- 
posite reaction. Nothing is fruitless. When the 
unheated rifle-ball strikes the iron plate, the plate 
stops the ball, flattened and heated. The brake on 
the wheel takes motion from the wheel, but gives it 
heat instead. Both the ball and the wheel lose one 
energy, but gain another that is a fair equivalent 
But a force, and its equivalent in reciprocal or inverse 
correlation are both present at the same moment As 
an electrical rod cannot have both positive and neg- 
ative electricity on the same end ; and as, generally 



262 The Philosophy of the Sttpematural. 



two opposite energies cannot both be present at the 
same time and place, yet, if one be absent the other 
will be present. Nature is vigilant but economical. 
When she uses one force, she rests some other. Like 
a relief of sentinels, when one is off duty, another is 
on. Correlation shows, as we have seen, how one 
'' matter force," in giving origin to the next, is itself 
expended or ceases to Q^\'$Xassuch ; and how much one 
mode of force is the equivalent of so much of another 
mode. It has been likened to a mart where we barter 
or exchange one kind of force for its equivalent in 
another. It is rather a bank from which we do not 
draw the identical coin we deposit, but only its equiv- 
alent in other coin. But as no credit is given, we must 
first deposit before we can draw at all. Every force, 
as it has been said, is preceded by some other force. 
The law of compensation that adjusts the exchange in 
this correlation gives one force after another. In 
brief, nature keeps things exactly where she wants 
them, and in perfect harmony, looking and moving in 
the direction of ultimate perfectibility. 

Correlative movements in matter are necessitated 
by three universal and omnipotent principles in na- 
ture : First— AW physicists, from Aristotle down, say, 
that nature abhors a vacuum. Everywhere must be 
something, solid or fluid, and but one. A moral vac- 
uum is as impossible as any other. If man has not 
virtues he will have vices. 5^<;^;^^/— Though there can 
be no vacuum, and nature fills everyplace with some- 
thing, she only puts one thing in any one place at the 
same time. In things that run in successive pairs, such 
as day and night, virtue and vice, you will have 



Moral Correlations. 26-^ 



exactly as much of one as you do not have of the 
other. Just as morality goes immorality comes 
They are not companions. Two kings cannot sit on 
the same part of the throne at the same moment 
Nature never attempts the impossible. The laws of 
impenetrability forbid space to have too much of any- 
thing. The driven wedge or nail, or the stone in the 
water, each displaces its own bulk, and no more 
Shadows increase with the departing sun. The roots 
of the tree displace their own bulk of earth in which 
they are fastened. Two opposite trains cannot pass 
each other on the same track. In addition to this 
abhorrence of a vacuum and this law of impenetra- 
bility of matter and of incompatibility of morals 
there is, thirdly, the fact of universal unrest. Nothing 
IS stationary. Forces are ever in unstable equilibrium 
and character is ever oscillating to an average. As' 
If you mix a pint of the seed of tares with a bushel 
ot wheat, you will average upward in value, so you 
will average downward if you mix a bushel of tares 
with a pmt of wheat. The moral average of charac- 
ter and conduct will depend on the proportion of its 
virtues to its vices. In colors, you will have a shade 
or a tint, as the light or the dark predominates in the 
hue. 

(ii) In moral force there is also an inverse correla- 
tion Systems do not conflict, but agree. As in mat- 
ter, force IS any power that does work, such as gravi- 
tation, heat and electricity ; so, sacred or moral force 
IS any poweror influence that affects conduct or shapes 
civilization, such as love, adoration, and awe in wor 
ship, the sacredness of domestic relations, and the 



264 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

highest mental and moral education of man. Secular 
force includes the seeking of power for the sake of 
power, the love of money, war for personal or terri- 
torial aggrandizement, and the separation of the state 
from rehgion. Things that have their opposite, not 
in esse, but in posse, such as morality and immorality, 
and things that do not co-exist at the same moment 
in the same subject, can be correlated into that op- 
posite : as heat into electricity, or virtue into vice, and 
the reverse. If things will change, it is important to 
know the law of that change as it affects conduct and 
society. 

Looking at the past through the perspective of his- 
tory, it will be seen that the increment of secular 
forces is exactly equivalent to the shrinkage in the 
sacred forces, and the reverse ; and that the correlation 
of sacred and secular forces is as rigidly demonstrable 
and measurable as that of any and all other forces. 
This correlation is seen in the fact that the maximum 
of sacred forces coincides with the minimum of the 
secular, and the maximum of the secular force is the 
minimum of the sacred. In other words, a given 
quantity of one has been displaced and an exact equiv- 
alent of the other has been substituted — the one com- 
ing as the other goes. High civilization is in the sup- 
pression of disorganizing force, and the substitution 
of its equivalent in one of harmony ; a result ever 
coming and ever to come. The tendency in the ebb 
and flow of events is from extreme sacredness to ex- 
treme secularity, and the reverse. Take the case of 
one addicted to vice, say to drunkenness, and the 
power of vice will strengthen exactly as the power 



Wrong is Immortal. 26s 



of the will weakens. Discipline is correlated into 
indulgence. Lawlessness increases as restraints are 
removed. Immorality increases as spiritual or relig- 
ious power decreases. 

Do we not in this transmutation or manifestation 
of physical force— the increment of the one corres- 
ponding to the decrement of another, or the incre- 
ment of one corresponding to the increment of 
another, and the reverse— grasp a principle which 
underlies the action and reaction of all changes, 
whether physical, moral, or political? Fraud, defa- 
mation, falsehood, impurity, malicious violence, and 
theft, have their place in the universal chain of cause 
and effect, of integration and disintegration, of pro- 
pagation and growth, of evolution and devolution, of 
conservation and correlation. Can the perpetrator of 
wrong escape all consequences of his act ? Is wrong 
the only thing in all the universe released from 
responsibility, or that does not propagate itself, or 
from which the doer instantly disconnects himself, and 
leaves his wrong to its solitary effects.? Can a man 
separate himself from his shadow ? Let no one,especial- 
ly the young, deceive himself as to the inexorable 
laws of all things. The character of actions becomes 
the character of the actors. The bed of mineral satu- 
rates the stream that passses over it. Wrong-doing 
poisons all subsequent life. Evils change, but never 
die. Philosophize about it as we may, we cannot be 
blind to the universal fact that somehow, in the end, 
right gets even with each wrong. As said before, the 
law of equivalence, or compensation, is the most ter- 
rible of certainties to all who do wrong. Deferred 



266 The Philosophy of the Supernaturac. 

payments only accumulate the debt. Money loaned 
must come back with interest. Time becomes an aw- 
ful and avenging factor. It neither conceals nor for- 
gets ; but as seconds added to seconds make up the 
ages, so does a retribution to come enlarge and inten- 
sify itself. Wrong is immortal. Moral equilibriums 
are inevitable. Let every man who has broken a 
moral law know that, whether asleep or awake, in 
whatever continent or zone he may be, the remorse- 
less law of correlation, of equivalence, of compensa- 
tion, of equilibration, is ever in pursuit, and knows 
exactly where and when to find him for reparation or 
for punishment. The police of the universe is ubiq- 
uitous, its justice infallible, and its punishments com- 
plete and resistless. 



LECTURE VI. 



METHOD OF CORRELATION OF FORCES. 

I. Correlation between imconscious forces. This lec- 
ture extends and applies the principles of the preceding 
lecture. What is force? Whatever moves matter is 
force. I take the bulb of the thermometer in my hand 
by the act of my Avill-force, and the mercury rises in 
the tube by a force that is not the act of my will. I am 
conscious of the will-force that takes hold of the ther- 
mometer, but I am not conscious of the action of the 
heat-force that moves the mercury up the tube. One 
force, therefore, is conscious and personal ; and the 
other IS unconscious and impersonal. The inverse 
correlation of the unconscious and impersonal forces 
that we are now to consider, will suffice to explain 
the direct correlation of these forces as well. 

This supernatural will-power manifests both matter 
forces, such as heat, electricity and gravitation, and 
also mind force, such as animal will, conscious and 
personal in man, and unconscious and impersonal in 
animals below man. Correlative forces are exchanged 
—blind matter force with blind matter force, as heat 
with electricity, and conscious, superhuman mind 
lorce, with conscious human mind force, as when man 



268 The philosophy of the Supernatural. 



gives up his own will and takes God's will — the human 
and the superhuman wills concurring. 

Grove says that the term correlative means a nec- 
essary, mutual or reciprocal dependence of two ideas, 
inseparable even in mental conception ; thus the idea 
of height cannot exist without involving the idea of its 
correlative depth; the idea of parent cannot exist 
without involving the idea of offspring. There are, 
lor example, many facts which cannot take place with- 
out involving the other ; one arm of a lever cannot 
be depressed without the other being elevated ; the 
finger cannot press the table without the table press- 
ing the finger. 

Force is force, and if impersonal forces may thus 
be correlated, exchanged, bartered, so much of one 
for so much of another, why may not personal force 
be correlated ? Force is a mode of power, and power 
is will, and will is a personal attribute of choice 
coupled with an attempt to realize itself, and why may 
not the personal will force of one be exchanged or 
correlated with the personal will force of another? 
And why may not the superhuman will force of an 
infinite person be correlated with the human will 
force of a finite person ? 

Grove, speaking of the physical forces, viz.: heat, 
electricity, magnetism, chemical affinity and motion, 
says that they are all correlative, or have reciprocal 
dependence ; that neither, taken abstractedly, can be 
said to be the essential cause of the other, but that 
either may produce or be convertible into any of the 
others; thus heat may mediately or immediately pro- 
duce electricity, electricity may produce heat ; and so 



Correlation a Method. 269 



of the rest. (Grove on Correlation of Forces, p. 19.) 
But one force cannot be said to produce or cause 
another. The going of one force may be the occasion 
but is not the cause of the coming of the other, nor 
does a retiring force become another force by the mo- 
tion or act of retiring. The maximizing of the human 
will cannot cause or compel the minimizing of the 
superhuman will, and the reverse. We cannot explain 
this any more than we can explain why any one force 
maximizes as some other force minimizes. Science 
tells us that this is a fact, and history and observation 
tell us that the other is a fact also. The correlation 
of mind-forces is as certain as the correlation of mat- 
ter-forces—that is, as will is force, and as force cor- 
relates, a fortiori doQs will correlate. 

Correlation is a method, and as method it implies 
will and intelligence. If supernatural intelligence and 
will power be denied, so all methods in the universe 
must be denied. Method of impersonal and unintelli- 
gent power is unthinkable. 

Correlation is neither a process, a creation nor a 
generation. It is a method. It is merely an equiva- 
lency of forces or things— so much of one for so much 
of something else as its correlative. It neither pro- 
duces atomic matter, nor organizes atomic matter, nor 
vitalizes atomic matter, nor personalizes atomic mat- 
ter. It deals with matter and force furnished to its 
hand, already existing. 

The correlation or conservation of force is thought 
by some to be the distinguishing discovery of the age; 
but that depends upon what force is, and what corre- 
lation is. We expect to show that there are no forces 



2 70 The Philosophy of the SupernaUiraL 



as such to be correlated ; and that all that correlation 
is, is the correlative manifestations of the one super- 
natural will-power. In any one correlative act, the 
correlative forces as force, are two, but the Power is 
one. Supernatural will is the one power, and natural 
force is a special manifestation of this supernatural 
power. 

The scope of what Mr. Spencer calls the process of 
evolution, is a denial of creation, and is only a method 
of correlation. As stated by Mr. Spencer, " the affirm- 
ation of universal evolution is, in itself, the negation 
of the absolute commencement of anything." Mr. 
Spencer says : '' Evolution is an integration of matter, 
and concomitant dissipation of motion." This is sim- 
ply a method of correlation ; and nothing more.* 

In other words, evolution defined as a method is the 
eternal correlation of eternal matter. Evolution 
described as a process has been considered before. 
We have seen that after the order of supernature 
in nature, when things have been produced, as in 



{d) We may here see : 

Minimum of Integra- 
tion. 



CD 



I 
09 



Maximum of Integra- 
tion. 




Maximum of Motion. 



Minimum of Motion. 



Cor7^elatio7t not Evohction. 



271 



the ereative method, and after their propagation 
has been delegated, as in the organic, genetic method, 
Supernatural Power exchanges its several substances 
and forces, one with another, in a method of equiva- 
lence, called the method of Correlation. This is seen 
in objects in nature without wills, and in objects in 
nature with wills. Correlations in objects without 
wills, Mr. Spencer calls evolution, as when Power or 
the one Supernatural Will correlates the natural 
things of matter and motion. He says, - the formula 
finally is : Evolution is the integration of matter, and 
concomitant dissipation of motion; during zvhich the 
matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity, 
to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which 
the retained motion midergoes a parallel trans formation:' 
(F. P., § 145.) If this is a definition of evolution, then 
what is correlation .^ If this is a definition of correla- 
tion, then what is evolution.^ The first part of the 
above definition is of a mechanical action, and the 
second part is the description of a mechanical result. 
Mr. Spencer's inaccuracies are the more remarkable 
as he aspires to formulate a synthetic philosophy' 
He admits that - Involution would much more truly 
express the nature of the process" which he calls 
Evolution. As an authority he should have used the 
word he ought to have used, and have corrected 
popular usage, if wrong. But the word involution 
admits extrinsic force, would open the door to the ' 
theistic idea of personal power; and so he retains 
the impersonal idea of evolution from intrinsic power 
But he IS no more fortunate in his definition of evo- 
lution ; for, as he defines it, evolution is a method of 



272 The Philosophy of the Super nahiral. 



correlation between matter and motion, producing 
nothing and by nothing produced. 

Mr. Spencer says: '' T\^^ processes X^wxs, everywhere 
in antagonism, and everywhere gaining now a tem- 
porary and now a more or less permanent triumph 
over the other, we call Evolution and Dissolution. 
Evolution under its simplest and most general aspect 
is the integration of matter and concomitant dissipa- 
tion of motion ; while Dissolution is the absorption 
of motion and concomitant disintegration of matter." 
(F. P., § 97.) The phrases, '' dissipation of motion " 
and " absorption of motion," do not convey accurate 
ideas. Motion as power in action may cease, but no 
power, active or inactive, can be dissipated. Motion 
may cease, but not be absorbed, for that cannot be 
absorbed which does not exist. Motion absorbs 
force so far as it absorbs anything, and force causes 
motion, but there is no motion to be absorbed until 
force creates it. Force may be reflected, transmitted, 
or distributed, but not motion. Motion ceases, but 
is not dissipated ; it is caused, but not absorbed. 

Mr. Spencer says : " We shall everywhere mean by 
evolution, the /r^^^^^ which is always an integration 
of matter and dissipation of motion." (F. P., § 97.) 
The method of the correlation of matter and motion 
is thus called a process of evolution. This assumes 
the existence of matter and motion, but does not 
account for the origin of either. Again, Mr. S. says: 
" Evolution is the passage of matter from a diffused 
to an aggregated state. (F. P., § 139-) So, then, Mr. 
Spencer's definition and description of evolution, 
which should be called correlation instead of evolu- 



Pre-existing Power. 27-' 



tion,- teach a pre-existing Power, pre-existing matter 
and a pre-existing, diffused state of matter. 

We have already seen that the mere mechanical 
method of correlation is, the fixed correspondence 
-of states and motions, and the equivalence of quanti- 
ties. But whether things are manifested in a process 
-of evolution or are equivalently correlated, we must 
account for the commencement of the things them- 
selves. Evolution does not do this; for evolution 
does not consider or admit the absolute commence- 
ment of anything, Correlation does not account for 
things ; for it is only a method of the equivalence of 
thmgs. So, under the treatment of the correlation 
of things, we are attracted back to the consideration 
of the origin of things themselves. In correlation 
there is : 

{a) Pre-existing Power. The consideration of 
this we have somewhat anticipated. How long has 
this Power pre-existed ? Mr. Spencer speaks of it as 
a Power of which the nature remains forever incon- 
ceivable, and to which no limit in Time or Space can 
be imagined." (F. P., § 194.) 

We must not understand that the integration of 
matter is one act and the dissipation of motion is 
another. The one wedge makes two forms of matter 
They are correlative results of the same act of Power • 
just as the quantity of space on one side of the diag- 
onal of a square is positively more as the other side 
IS negatively less; or just as the space on one side 
of a perpendicular line positively increases as the 
space on the other side positively increases. 

As, according to Parmenides, unitv excludes plu- 



2 74 ^-^^^ Philosophy of the Sttpe7^7iaturaL 



rality, so the unity of power excludes the plurality 
of forces. Forces are but several radiations of one 
power — many streams from one fountain. We may 
call energies of power forces, but the name does not 
change the essence. For the sake of convenience we 
may call one manifestation of will-power heat and 
another electricity ; but after all, force is simply will- 
power doing different things under different names. 

Omnipresent and omniscient will envelopes, per- 
vades and is the force of all phenomena. When 
personal, supernatural power impersonalizes itself as 
so-called natural force, so much is this so-called 
natural force and supernatural power one and the 
same, that while we worship the personal power, we 
should not fail to see the action of Supernatural 
Will in what is called impersonal force. 

There is a personal pantheism that is not imperson- 
al atheism, and there is a personality in theism that is 
pantheistic in presence. Theism and personal pan- 
theism are human expressions for the one, omnipresent 
person of God. God is the name of the infinite Power ; 
and nature is the name of its finite manifestation. 

We have seen that Will is Power— that Power mani- 
fests itself as force— that force is said to be exchanged 
or correlated with force, as heat with electri-city, or 
energy with velocity ; but, after all, forces are only 
energies of the one supernatural Will-Power, and are 
not exchanged or correlated at all. When Will- 
Power withdraws a given amount of energy of one 
kind ipso facto, it manifests an equivalent amount of 
some other kind. The correlation is between the dif- 
ferent decisions of the Will-Power within the will 



One Will Doing two Things. 



9 



75 



Itself, not between the so-called forces or energ-ies 
themselves. As Will ceases to do one thing, it be|ins 
to do some other corresponding thing. There is no 
moment of time, no object in space, no sound in the 
air, no change of relations not subject to the omni 
present, unsuspended, ever effective, sole power of 
Crod's will. As all fingers are parts of the hand all 
members parts of the body, all colors parts of light so 
all forces are special manifestations of one Power 
Where gravitation is, there is God's will ; and so 
where heat electricity, or chemic affinity is, there is 
His will. If force is will, there can be no correlation 
of force, for there can be no correlation of God's 
will. That will may act uniformily, and we mav call 
It law or It may specially will those phenomena that 
we call providence and miracles. This supernatural 
Will.Power manifests both a positive and a negative 
condition ; that is, the negative is the absence of the 
positive. To will atoms to move, is to will that they 
shall not be at rest. To will that atoms be at rest, i, 
o will that they shall not move. We see how star/ 
ight fades into day-light, and day-light fades into star- 
light ; we see how the leaf gives out the carbon at 
night and the oxygen in the day ; we see when the 
upper chamber of the hour-glass is empty, the lower 
IS tu 1 ; we find in ourselves personal mind and imper- 
sonal matter. Why should not the supernatural 
Fovver-Being exist in any condition of his own choos- 
ing.? There is now in and around each one of us 
personal minds and impersonal matter; and the per' 
sonal and the impersonal are so blended or inter 
mingled in ourselves that we cannot separate their 



276 The Philosophy of the Stipernatural. 



boundaries any more than we can say how far in the 
outside of a block goes or how far out the inside 
comes. Personification of nature abounds in the 
Bible. Is personification of trees, rocks and seas only 
figures of oriental rhetoric, or is it expressive of a fact 
of personality in the awful totality and constitution of 
things ? The power and presence of a personal God 
are around and in impersonal rocks and trees that the 
heathen personify as God. Indeed, while they see no 
similitude yet they hear a voice. 

The Power to manifest is the Power to create, and 
the Power to create is the Power to generate, and the 
Power to generate is the Power to correlate. We 
infer that this power has an underived Will, because 
from this all-manifesting Power, we derive our own 
Will. As this Power manifests matter and motion as 
its symbols, it integrates its symbol of matter, and dis- 
sipates its symbol of motion, in a method of correla- 
tion, having less of one as it has much of the other, 
and the reverse. 

The integration of matter and the dissipation of 
motion is simply the correlation between matter and 
force ; but, as all force is Will, the correlation is really 
between matter and Will. But, as matter itself is only 
a manifestation of Will, the correlation defined as 
evolution, is essentially between modes of Will— Will 
in a material manifestation and Will manifested as 
force in motion. Subjective Will-Power objectifies 
itself as matter and as motion. What is called cor- 
relation of force is simply that one manifestation of 
God's will becomes less as another manifestation 
becomes more ; or rather that, in willing one thing he 



Power Manifests Different Forces. 2 -j-j 



does not will another, its opposite. So, in vvillin^ 
integration of matter he does not will its disintegra 
tion. Will, as force, attracts ; and Will, as force 
repels. Both forces are but phases of one Power and 
correlate according to mass and distance. It is called 
integration when the attractive force is greater than 
the repellent; it is called disintegration, when the 
repellent force is greater than the attractive ; so that 
what IS called evolution, which really is correlation 
may be defined to be the integration through attract 
tion of diffused matter or the disintegration through 
repulsion of concentrated matter, as the strength of 
the one force may be. The dissipation of motion is 
the dissipation of force ; and the absorption of motion 

!fj I urif *'°" °^ ^'^'^^ • ^"^ f''"'^^ '^ Will. Super, 
natural Will is natural force. 

Power manifests itself in nature as one kind of 
i-orce at one time, and as another kind of Force at 
another. Power integrates its matter as the force of 
attraction, and it disintegrates its matter under the 
force of repulsion. One Power manifests itself as 
many forces ; but many forces sympathize as one 
rower Thus it is, that the correlation between mat- 
ter and motion is really the correlation between two 
different manifestations of the same Power-that is 
between supernatural Power as motion and supernat- 
ural Power in the shape of matter; in other words. 
Power manifests itself as matter, and then, as force 
controls the matter it manifested as Power. One act 
of God s will as a force is part of God's will mani- 
fested as matter ; and so one act of God's will does 
not conflict with another act of God's will as such 



278 The Philosophy of the Siipernatural. 



Strictly speaking, one Power is doing it all (see Figs. 
142, Lect. v.), just as a diagonal drawn in a square 
makes two opposite figures, one increasing as the oth- 
er decreases ; or, using the diagonal as a perpendicu- 
lar, one figure increases as the other increases. Power 
cannot conflict with itself ; as by one act of our will 
we raise one hand and lower the other. One Power, 
at the same moment, does different if not opposite 
thino-s ; even as the will of the musician variously 
moves the several fingers of the same hand, at the 
same moment. The many facts can have but one 
factor. We say that matter is a manifestation of God's 
will ; the diffusion of matter is a manifestation of the 
same will; the integration of this matter is by the 
same Will : its disintegration is an opposite will of the 
same Power. Motion does not correlate or exchange 
with matter ; but the Will-Power that integrates mat- 
ter at one moment disintegrates the same matter in 
the next. There are not two forces, but two mani- 
festations of one force Power. Supernatural will at 
one moment pulls diffused matter together, and in the 
next it pushes aggregate matter apart. The same Will 
that at one moment manifests heat, the next moment 
ceases that act of willing, and wills that there shall be 
an equivalent amount of electricity. There is one 
Will, not two forces ; and yet the two manifestations 
of the one Will are called two forces. 

Science can have as much certainty in this view of 
the mystery of phenomena as it could have in any 
impersonal law. Will can be uniform as law. Su- 
pernatural Will-Power can and has made itself cer- 
tain in nature ; but supernature is not the slave of its 



Plus and Minus Force. 2 70 



own uniformity. It can be multiform and variant 
1 hat It IS uniform is a uniformity that it prescribes 
to Itself. Science can rely upon the uniformity of 
omniscience, but it can have none upon that of nesci- 
ence We may confidently expect that what infinite 
intelligence saw to be best in the past, it will see to 
be best for the future, or that compensations in phe- 
nomena will make something better. But who can 
know what a universe without sense or intelligence 
may do? A universe without an intelligent plan 
goes not as it pleases but as it happens. 

Power, like a wedge, works two ways at once. 
(Jne act divides an apple into two parts. The anti- 
thesis of Power is exhibited when matter inte- 
grates as motion dissipates, just as the pendulum 
swinging between two points lengthens the distance 
behind It as it shortens the distance before it, or as 
the curved line convexes one side as it concaves the 
other. The loss ot one is the gain of the other. 

At the margin of the sea, the Pillar of God was 
light to the Israelites and darkness to the Egyptians 
Apparently conaicting phenomena are opposite sides 
of one Power. Power is the center of all circum- 
ferences, and the unity of all pluralities. One Power 
IS at the angle where centripetalism and centrifugal- 
ism diverge. The one Power has two supplemental 
motions of integration and disintegration. The 
power that at one moment is integrating matter, is 
disintegrating matter at the next. The correlation 
!f-a"°* between matter and motion, but between a 
diffused cDndition of matter, and a condensed con- 
dition of matter. Uniform power has multiform 



28o The Philosophy of the SupeimaturaL 



manifestations. The power that is behind any one 
manifestation is behind them all. 

How the integration of matter and the dissipation 
of motion, could ever result in life, evolutionists do 
not explain. It is exactly in this nexus between mat- 
ter and life, that evolution without a living God, 
breaks down. There must be some uniformity ta 
harmonize all multiformities, whether that uniformity 
be called impersonal Power or a personal God. 
With a God, both correlation and evolution, as two 
actual among other possible methods of God, need 
not be denied. In the methods we see God. To 
admit one is to prove the other. Integration and 
disintegration of matter are opposite manifestations 
of the same Power. Sometimes that Power acts as. 
a wedge, and sometimes as a compress; in other 
words, sometimes Power is the power of centripet- 
alism, pulling diffused atoms together; and some- 
times it is the Power of centrifugalism, pulling 
concentrated atoms apart. There are not two powers 
contending in the mastery ; but the Power is the one 
Power unlimited in Time and Space, harmonizing its 
movements. It is the supernatural managing the 
natural, and is, in a sense, itself both. 

Supernatural Power has not left itself without 
witness. There are three points in the process of 
evolution, when that Supernatural Power is obviously 
present in direct action. The first point is where 
motion begins to dissipate and matter to integrate.. 
The second point is w^hen repulsive motion begins to 
be absorbed, and integrated matter to disintegrate. 
The third point is where the process of special evolu- 



Power has 7io Qttantity. 281 



tion stops and the process of special dissolution 
begins. The processes of evolution and dissolution 
are natural : the power that stops one and begins the 
other is supernatural. Universal evolution is not 
followed by universal dissolution. Special dissolu- 
tions are parts of universal evolution. 

Power of unfixed quantity manifests itself as force 
of unfixed quantity. Evolution has rhythm, but no 
exhaustion, because supernatural will has no exhaus 
tion. Omnipotent Will has omnipotent energies. 
Mr. Spencer says, on the contrary, that '' evolution 
has an impassable limit." (F. P., § i;o.) He says 
• that '' Motion as well as Matter being fixed in quan- 
tity, it would seem that the change in the distribution 
of Matter which motion effects, coining to a limit in 
whichever direction it is carried, the indestructible 
motion thereupon necessities a reverse distribution. 
Apparently, the universal co-existent forces of attrac- 
tion and repulsion, which, as we have seen, necessi- 
tate rhythm in all minor changes throughout the 
Universe, also necessitate rhythm in the totality of 
Its changes —produce now an immeasurable period 
during which the attractive forces predominating, 
cause universal concentration, and then an immeasur- 
able period during which the repulsion forces pre- 
dominating, cause universal diffusion— alternate eras 
of Evolution and Dissolution." (F. P., § 183.) [Ital- 
ics our own.] 

But where is the evidence that the quantity of 
Matter and Motion is fixed ? Mr. S. says - the quan- 
tity of Force remains always the same." (F. P., § 58.) 
But that depends on what is force. The action of 



282 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

force may be limited, but its quantity is not fixed. 
Unlimited Power may have changeable limits of 
force. In our personal consciousness, and according 
to the teachings of Herschell, Wallace, and Carpen- 
ter, we know of no other source of power or force 
in ourselves than that of our wills. If Will is Power 
and Power is force, force can no more be 'an abso- 
lutely fixed quantity ; for force and Will are only 
different names for the same power. Natural force 
is Supernatural Will-Power. The quantity of motion 
as Will is unfixed, for Will is a Power, but not a fixed 
Power or force; and, if we may assign Will as a 
cause for human motion in human, why may we not 
expect to find superhuman Will a cause for superhu- 
man motion ? If Will is fixed, it is fixed by the Will 
itself, and the Will may unfix itself. 

The distinct formula is, that all things are manifes- 
tations of Power. Is motion a manifestation of this 
Power, or is it this Power itself in action? If motion 
is unlimited Power itself in action, then, of course, 
the quantity of motion is not fixed, for unlimited 
Power is not fixed, and to say that Power unlimited 
in Time or Space is limited in matter or motion, is a 
contradiction. Indeed, Power cannot be limited in 
anything. 

Scientists admit that they do not know what matter 
is. How, then, can the}^ advance the dogma, that the 
quantity of matter is fixed and that matter can be 
neither created nor destroyed ? If Power materializes, 
or if Will materializes, or if matter mentalizes, matter 
cannot be a fixed quantity. Matter is mucli or little 
as Power may manifest of itself, or as Will may 



Powe?^ Manifests Form. ' 283 



choose to make out of itself; whether you call it 
Power or Will, that takes form. The essence of mat- 
ter being unknown, its quantity cannot be said to be 
fixed ; and where we do not know we should not say. 
If all things are manifestations of Power does this 
Pow^er have nothing to do with the rhythmic limit 
and alternatives of Evolution and Dissolution ? Ac- 
cording to the notion that Matter and Motion have a 
fixed quantity, evolution and dissolution would seem 
to result from an exhaustion of force. But the Power 
of the universe has no limits in Time or Space. If, 
then, motion has no limits in unlimited Power, mo- 
tion must be limited if at all, because Power saw fit 
to limit it. And here we may ask, if Power limits 
motion or matter, does Power act intelligently or un- 
intelligently 1 

If all things are manifestations of Power, then those 
manifestations imply that Power must control its own 
manifestations. If matter and motion are manifesta- 
tions of this Power, either their quantitv is fixed or 
not fixed by that Power-in short, they do not fix or 
hmit themselves. Or are we to conclude that matter 
and motion are limited, because unlimited Power 
must hmit them in the nature of things? Unlimited 
power is its own limit. When agnostic speculation 
smgles out the one attribute of Power from the other 
attributes of the Supernatural Person we call God, 
and pass by the other attributes of intelligence, and 
holiness unnoticed, it entangles itself in the perplex- 
ity of accounting for all things by mere power, when 
the evidence of supernatural intelligence is no less 
than is the evidence of supernatural power. But, if 



284 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 

mere power is all, then Power materializes, for there 
is matter ; Power mentalizes, for there is mind ; Power 
combines, for there is combination ; Power vitalizes, 
for there is life ; Power personalizes, for there are per- 
sons. We see that power, whether personal or im- 
personal, intelligent or unintelligent, both begins and 
continues things — that is, it both originates and trans- 
forms. Agnostic science ignores the origin of the 
universe, for which religion accounts, and occupies 
itself only with the transformations of the organic 
matters of the universe, which it calls evolution, and 
which religion calls methods of Power in correlation. 

[b) Pre-existent matter. But how has matter pre- 
existed ? As atoms, molecules or masses? We are 
told that its first form was an atom. Was that atom 
evolved out of nothing or created out of nothing? 
Is the atom eternal ? We beg to repeat that matter 
could not be said to be until it was known to be ; and 
when it was known to be there was mind to know it. 
If matter is not only eternal, but has been eternally 
known to be, then there has been eternal mind to know. 
Are there two eternals, or if only one, then, was eter- 
nal mind eternal matter, or eternal matter eternal 
mind ? 

Evolution is limited to the mere behaviour or cor- 
relation of motion and of the molecules of matter, not 
of an atom of matter, as an atom. An atom is already 
integrated, and no dissipation of motion can make it 
more integrated. Therefore, evolution does not appl}^ 
to matter as matter, but only to matter in a diffused 
or in a diffusable condition. But an atom can neither 
be more integrated or more diffused than it is in itself. 



Pre-existent Matter. 285 



Mr. Spencer protests that he is not working- out a 
materialistic system (i Biol. 490), but if he were a ma- 
terialist he would believe in the eternity of matter ; 
and though he does not believe in the eternity of mat- 
ter, he does not believe in its creation ; for that would 
be the commencement of matter, which he denies. 
With him all that now is, is all that ever has been ; 
and all that ever will be, is all that now is. Mr. 
Spencer emphatically denies that he is bound to as- 
sume a first organism in organic nature, but he can- 
not deny that he assumes a first atom in inorganic 
nature. According to his theory, there could be no 
such commencement; for he says, we have seen, that 
''the affirmation of universal evolution is in itself a 
negation of an absolute commencement of anything." 
That which has never commenced and is not eternal 
when all is eternal, is not at all. So, as matter is 
neither eternal or has a commencement, there is no 
matter. And yet, he everywhere means by evolution 
the process which is always an integration of matter. 
If Mr. Spencer does not mean to assume matter, when 
he says that it integrates, he must go back and show 
how matter, before it integrates, came to be matter at 
all. 

If Power materializes, and evolution is the Integra 
tion of matter, then evolution is the integration of 
materialized Power— in other words, matter is only a 
form of Power. Integration of matter is a new name 
for gravitation, the centripetalism, the unification, the 
aggregation, the synthesis of matter. It is simply a 
new description of old ideas. As we have said, evo- 
lution is the paradox expressed by Plato in his Par- 



2 86 The Philosophy of the SupernattLraL 



menides, that ** all unity tends to plurality, and all 
plurality ends in unity." When did this pre-existence 
of matter commence? Mr. Spencer sa3's, as we have 
seen, that " the affirmation of universal evolution is in 
itself a negation of the absolute commencement of 
anything. He also says: "The absolute commence- 
ment of organic life on the globe, I distinctly deny." 
(i Biol. p. 482.) But, we repeat, he cannot deny the 
pre-existence of the matter which is integrated in evo- 
lution — in other words, the integration of matter does 
not originate the matter integrated. Then when did 
matter begin, if ever? 

We have said that we start with Power, but we do 
not start with evolution ; for, as evolution is the in- 
tegration of matter, there can be no integration of 
matter until Power has materialized itself, or until 
Power has manifested, created, or evolved matter to 
be integrated. The question right here is, what is the 
nevus between power and matter ? Did Power be- 
come matter or did Power create matter when there 
was no matter? Infinite power, in manifesting mat- 
ter, decides for itself whether it will be matter or 
create matter. Matter is manifested in either one way 
or the other. 

We start with omnipresent, formless Power. In 
some way Power manifests Form. Omnipotence is 
parturient of all forms and substances, and the cre- 
ation of something out of nothing is no more incom- 
prehensible than that Power should materialize itself, 
or that matter should be eternal, or that matter should 
mentalize itself. And yet some minds, to whom two 
incomprehensibilities are equally difficult, can bring 



An Atom cannot Integrate. 287 

themselves to accept one incomprehensibility and 
reject another. And yet to say that matter is a shape 
of Power does seem more thinkable than to say that 
matter is eternal where there was only eternal Power. 
If evolution is the method of the universe, then it 
covers inorganic atoms, which must be creatively 
evolved, ab extra, or not be evolved at all, as each 
atom holds only its own Power. One atom may affect 
but cannot evolve or manifest another atom. PoWer 
must manifest the atom before the atom can take its 
place in the process of correlative evolution. But if 
the process of evolution is to include the origin of 
the atom, as well as its integration, then evolution in- 
cludes more than the integration of matter— and it 
mcludes its origin as a creation as well as its 
genetic organisms. Atoms are before the integrating 
evolutions of atoms. Evolution is the integration of 
matter it did not evolve. 

Nearly all systems of philosophy are cosmological 
and not ontological. They are but methods of effects, 
or how the universe was constructed, not Whence or 
by Whom. To these atheistical systems the universe 
IS automatic, impersonal and unintelligent. From 
Lucretius down, we have had the Matter-system; 
frofn Plato down, we have had the Id^a or Mind- 
system ; and now, in evolution, we have the Power- 
system. Power, as Power, is neither matter, nor mind, 
nor bemg ; but, as modes, Power might be, as it would 
seem, either or neither or both. Power is its own 
measure. Power is its own interpreter. Whether the 
power of evolution is or is not one of dynamics or 
mternal Power, or of mechanics or external Power, it 



288 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



certainly is a problem of three methods. One meth- 
od of Power is directly creative, as in the origin of 
the inorganic atom ; another is the causitive combina- 
tion of one atom with another, where, of course, 
there is no life ; and the other method of Power is 
derivative, as in organic nature, where, of course, 
there is life. Mr. Spencer chooses to magnify the 
genetic method of organic nature by discussing and 
formulating it, and to minify the creative method of 
inorganic nature by passing it over. Correlation im- 
plies not only pre-existent power, pre-existent matter, 
but it implies 

{c) Matter pre-existent in a diffused state. That 
cannot come together in integration which is not 
apart in disintegration. Plurahty may become unity ; 
but unity cannot become unity, because it is already 

unity. 

It follows that matter not in a diffused state is not 
subject to the process of evolution. One atom is 
matter, and so far as it is an atom, it is not in a dif- 
fused state, nor can it ever be more aggregated in 
and by itself than it is. Several atoms may be com- 
pounded, as those of oxygen and hydrogen in water, 
but each atom can never be internally diffused^ or 
changed. So, if evolution be the integration of mat- 
ter, the question arises, what matter, and in what 
quantities ? Matter in atoms, in molecules or in mass ? 
Integration of matter neither accounts for the atom 
—matter— to be integrated, in inorganic nature, nor 
does it account for the life in organic nature where 
life is the distinctive force. Notice that the integra- 
tion is of matter; not of force, nor of Power, nor of 
principles; but if evolution be possible, as defined, 



One Ato7n cannot Integrate. 289 



there must be matter in a diffused state that can be 
integrated, while there is atomic matter that is not 
diffused, and therefore cannot be integrated in evo- 
lution. Considering, therefore, the atom as the basal 
matter in inorganic nature, we must logically con- 
clude that correlative evolution of diffused matter 
does not apply to the whole of inorganic nature, as 
It does apply to the undiffused, inorganic atom. So, 
that, if the theory of atomic matter be affirmed, the 
theory of universal evolution of all matter, ' and 
especially the undiffused matter of an atom, must be 
denied. Thus we see how pre-existing Power, pre- 
existing matter, pre-existing in a diffused state', can 
integrate as motion is dissipated. There are three 
states of matter-the hypothetical atom, the group 
of atoms called the crystalloid, and the group of 
groups called the colloid. An atom may be moved 
by external force, but it cannot absorb any force or 
motion that will disintegrate it as an atom. A group 
of atoms, or a group of groups, may absorb force or 
motion, and be disintegrated as a group. But once 
an atom always an atom. An atom is not diffused 
• matter ; an atom is not integrated, because it never 
was disintegrated. It never was diffused, but was 
always indivisible. What is called correlation has 
been seen to be correlative movement, under the 
name of force, of the same Will ; but now we come 
to consider the correlative movement, not of one 
Will, but of two. 

2. Correlation of conscious forces. Wills, conscious 
and personal in man as distinguished from wills un- 
conscious and impersonal in brute animals, correlate 



290 The Philosophy of the SttpernaturaL 



exactly as the unconscious, unintelligent forces cor- 
relate. 

Direct correlation of wills is when two wills agree, 
and increase or decrease together; as, when it is the 
will of man not to have its own will, but says '' not 
my will, but thine O Lord, be done." 

The promise of the Lord to St. Paul was: "My 
grace is sufficient for thee : for my strength is made 
perfect in weakness. Most gladly, therefore, will I 
glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may 
rest upon me. Therefore, I take pleasure in infirmi- 
ties, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for 
Christ's sake ; for when I am weak, then am I strong." 
(2 Cor., xii., 9, 10.) God says, " My thoughts are not 
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said 
the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the 
earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and 
Qiy thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. Iv., 8-9.) 
" And I will come near to judgment; and I will be a 
swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the 
adulterers, and against false swearers, and against 
those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the 
widow and the fatherless, and that turn aside the 
stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the 
Lord of Hosts. For I am the Lord,- I change not : 
therefore, ye sons of Jacob are not consumed. Even 
from the days of your fathers, ye have gone away 
from mine ordinances and have not kept them. 
Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith 
the Lord of Hosts." (Mai. iii., 5-7.) 

St. Paul illustrates the direct correlation of the 
two wills that agree, when he says, "Ye are the 



Wills Correlate. 291 



temple of the living God ; as God hath said, I will 
dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their 
God and they shall be my people." (2 Cor, vi., 16.) 
God draws nigh to us as we draw nigh to Him. ' As 
we give Him up in our actions, He gives us up to 
our consequences. As our day with Him, so is our 
strength; and as our day without Him, so is our 
weakness. God moves on one uniform line ; it saves 
us as we move with it ; and it destroys us as we move 
agamst it. The correlation is of man's making As 
man's will agrees with God's Will, there is a maximum 
of good and a minimum of evil; and as man's will 
disagrees with God's Will, there is a minimum of 
good and a maximum of evil. 

Inverse correlation is when, as one will-power max- 
imizes, the will-power of the other minimizes; and 
the reverse, as one will-power minimizes, the will- 
power of the other maximizes. This inverse correla- 
tion is a see-saw of will-powers, like the two ends of 
a beam, one end going up as the other goes down 
Universal Will-Power of God may become latent or ■ 
restrain itself, just as the derived will-power of man 
becomes active. As the manifestation of one will is, 
the manifestation of the other is not. The Superhu- 
man is more, -as the human is less, and the Superhu- 
man less as the human is more; just as active force 
or energy changes into the potential, or the potential 
into the active. 

We are not to consider how there came to be two 
wills ; but that there should be two wills, is no great- 
er mystery than that there should be one. We know 
as a fact, that each intelligent individual, whether man' 



292 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



or beast, has a will. Whence we came is no more 
incomprehensible than what we are. One will of a 
high grade implies the possibility, indeed, the prob- 
ability, of another will of a higher, as we actually see 
that there are wills of a lower grade. As man is no 
permanent summit of anything, his will cannot be the 
summit of anything, his will cannot be the summit of 

will. 

Supernatural will-power then, in some way, mani- 
fests from itself will-power in the conscious will of 
man and will-power in the unconscious will, of ani- 
mals below man. The will-power in these lower ani- 
mals is a force, not so low. in grade as the matter- 
power in uninteUigent things, and not so high as the 
mind-power in inteUigent persons. Unconscious will- 
power is energetic instinct. The correlation we are 
now to investigate is the correlation of the limited 
will-power in man and the unlimited will-power of 
God. In this, one will-power is not doing two differ- 
ent things, as between two forces called impersonal, 
but two w411-powers, one unlimited and the other lim- 
ited, are w^ith or against each other upon the same 
thing. Whether there shall be much of heat as there 
is less of electricity, or less of heat as there is 
much of electricity, is all in the choice of one will; 
but whether there shall be much of the human mo- 
tives in conduct as there is less of the superhuman, or 
much of the superhuman motives in conduct as there 
is less of the human, is a question of two wills. Is not 
their action correlative to each other? 

For the sake of a convenient antithesis, we here 
make a verbal distinction between the supernatural 



Human and Sttperhun^an Wills. 



293 



ancLthe superhuman. The supernatural is the antithe- 
sis to the whole of the natural. The superhuman is the 
special supernatural antithesis to human nature. 

(«) The superhuman and the individual human 
Will. Heretofore we have considered one universal 
will as one universal power, manifested in the forces 
of material nature. Now we come to consider the 
correlative manifestation of two will-powers in the 
sphere of human life. The underived will we call 
underived power, the derived will we call de- 
rived power in intelligent nature, conscious in man 
and unconscious in brute animals. Power delegated 
m material nature we call force. The underived 
superhuman will as power, including and manifesting 
all force, correlates with the manifestations of the 
derived human will as force. The manifestation of 
the superhuman will, whether called power or force 
correlates with the manifestations of the human will' 
whether called will or force. 

Will is in all animal nature. Has animal nature a 
monopoly of will 1 We claim to have shown that hu- 
man will implies a superhuman will. Can these two 
wills correlate? Certain it is, that there is most of 
superhuman will manifested where there is the least 
of any other manifested, as in irrational, organic na- 
ture. As there is much of the superhuman in the 
motives of conduct, there is less of the human ; and 
as there is more of the human in the motives of con- 
duct, there is less of the superhuman. The correla- 
tion IS not the same between two wills that it is be- 
tween two forces. The superhuman will manifests 
the two forces, and then correlates them ; and one will- 
power does both the manifestation and the correla- 



294 ^^^^ Philosophy of the Sitpernatural. 



tion. But in the correlation of two wills, the case is 
different. The same universal power that specialized 
its will as force, and that set off the human will to act 
for itself, permits that human will somewhat to resist 
it, as the strong is patient with the resistance of the 
weak. So, within limits, there is the general fact, that 
the minimum of human will in the motives of conduct, 
is the maximum of superhuman will in help and ap- 
probation. 

Personal, conscious, supernatural power manifests 
unconscious, impersonal forces, and then interchanges 
or correlates them according to methods and aims of 
its own. But this supernatural will-power, ex mero 
motu, gave a limited power to a limited creature 
which, in itself as creator, was unlimited. This con- 
scious, supernatural will correlates its own power as 
force in all unconscious nature ; for there is no con- 
scious will in unconscious nature w^th which to cor- 
relate ; but it correlates as personal will, not as imper- 
sonal force, with the conscious will of human nature. 
That power which is blind force in a stone, is intelli- 
gent will in man. That is, as to the stone, God's will 
is its will ; as to man, God has given man his own 

will. 

When we speak of the correlation of two forces in 
matter, we are really speaking of one Will acting in 
two opposite ways. As we have said, in speaking of 
the correlation of unconscious forces, there is not one 
Will in the integration of matter and another Will in 
the dissipation of motion ; but one will in doing one 
thing, incidentally does another; just as a person in 
moving to one point is moving /r^;;^ another. i\s the 
sun goes to the west the shadows go to the east. So 



Personal Force Correlates with PersonalForce. 



295 



in describing a curve line, the same act forms two op- 
posite figures ; one concave and the other convex. So 
in drawing a diagonal, one line makes a hypothenuse 
common to two adjacent angles. In the correlation of 
two Wills, the result is the same. A superhuman 
Will willing to bless an obedient human will, cannot 
bless a disobedient human will. Change of action 
always changes relations. The obedient human will 
puts Itself in accord with the Superhuman Will as 
by Its disobedience, it puts itself in discord with the 
Superhuman Will. 

Personal force correlates with personal force as 
the correlation of the human with the Superhuman 
Will; and impersonal forces, so called, correlate with 
impersonal forces and things. There is a correspond- 
ence between the Power and its methods: intelligent 
method implies intelligent Power: personal methods 
imply personal power. The supernatural and per- 
sonal Power, we claim to have proved, implies super- 
natural, personal methods. Instead of the psycho- 
logical term Will, or the metaphysical term Power, 
suppose we use the more scientific term Force, and 
say that the Underived Force correlates with the 
derived force. Like sensitive balances, their equilib- 
rium IS easily disturbed ; or like the balanced beam 
one end goes up as the other goes down. Long lines 
of history show the alternate prevalence of one or 
the other of these two will-forces. , Their correlation 
IS as certain as the correlation of matter and motion 
or of any two forces, by whatever name known 
Sometimes this Superhuman Will so hedo-es the 
human will with difficulties, as to seem to c'oerce it 
unconsciously into conformity, leading men and na- 



296 The Philosophy of the Supernatural 



tions by ways they know not. The human will is 
not consulted as to whether, as an inhabitant of this 
sphere, it will be at the nadir or at the zenith of the 
terestrial orbit ; but it is consciously free all the time. 
The fish in the vase are free, but are not consulted 
when they are moved from one part of a room to 
another. The correlation of the manifestations of 
the human will with the manifestations of the Super- 
human Will, each will being- automatic, is the one 
moral and spiritual problem of human life and des- 
tiny. Religious ethics are the basis ot civilization. 
As related, religion is supernatural ethics, and ethics 
is natural religion. Ethics is the obedience of the 
human will to the superhuman Will; rehgion is the 
worship of the human soul of the Superhuman 
Being. By the correlation of the individual human 
Will, and the Superhuman Will, we mean that certain 
consequences invariably correspond to certain agree- 
ment or disagreement of these two Wills. Wills 
themselves, of course, are not exchangeable but they 
act interchangeably. The human and the superhu- 
man Wills may be said to be correlated as they affect 
conduct. The conscious conformity or correlation 
of the human will to the Superhuman Will, is ex- 
pressed in the submissive words of the Virgin Mary 
to the Angel, " be it unto me according to thy word ;" 
as it was afterwards to those of her divine Son in 
the Garden, " not as I will but as thou wilt." As by 
generation we are human, so by regeneration we 
become Superhuman — through ways not our own, 
we become partakers of the divine nature. In con- 
duct we become supernatural. The human, when it 
reaches up to the superhuman, is so emptied of its 



Force is Will, 297 



own will, as to be filled with the Superhuman WilL 
As the one is less, the other is more. ^' I seek not my 
own will, but the will of my father which hath sent 
me." (John v., 30.) - If I do this thing willingly 1 
have a reward ; but, if against my will, a dispensa- 
tion of the gospel is committed unto me." (i Cor., 
IX., 17.) Will is Power (see first lecture) and Power is 
force, and force correlates with force; as force is 
Power and Power is Will, so Will correlates with 
Will— that is, Superhuman Will, conscious and per- 
sonal, correlates with human will, conscious and per- 
sonal. We have already said that, as force is Will 
the correlation of force with force is only the corre- 
lative manifestation of the universal Will-Power with 
Its own special manifestations of Will-Power, called 
gravitation, heat, electricity, chemical affinity,' and so 
on. Indeed, these special manifestations are special 
modes of itself; and, yet, the mode is not the Power 
as such, any more than the wood of a throne or of a 
ship is the tree whence the wood came. 

We expect to show that, as Supernatural, personal 
Will-Power has manifested what are called imper- 
sonal, natural forces, and that these impersonal, nat- 
ural forces are correlated, so the manifestations of 
the underived Will of God correlates with the mani- 
festations of the derived will of man. The same law 
of correlative exchange which God has established 
between one force of his Will and another force of 
his Will as force, he has established between his Will 
as Power and man's will as Force. 

Universal Will-Power, like the special forces it 
manifests, may be active or inactive. That is, when 
the Superhuman Will-force of an infinite Person is 



298 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



active, the human will-force of a finite person may 
be inactive or concurrent; and the reverse, when the 
human will-force of a finite person is active the 
Superhuman Will-force of an infinite Person may be 
forbearingly inactive or concurrent. Or, as a direct 
correlation at times they both may be active or inact- 
ive toofether. We see that a force is active in one 
object, and inactive in some other object. As Grove 
said, one object cannot be heated without another 
being cooled ; one body cannot be positively electri- 
fied without some other body being negatively elec- 
trified. So, the will-power of God is less in our lives, 
as our own will-power is more, and the reverse. 
This is evident in all Scripture, and in all experience 
and observation. These two wills are automatic. In 
the correlation of the manifestation of the supernat- 
ural, personal Will, with the manifestation of the 
impersonal forces, the one supernatural Will, like the 
sun, is the Power, and many natural forces, like the 
rays, are the manifestations. But in the correlation 
of Superhuman Will with human will, the two wills 
act ex mero motu. The Superhuman Will says to the 
human will " come unto Me that ye may have life." 
, The human will responds to the Superhuman Will, 
^* I will not." We contend that the human and the 
Superhuman are correlatives both in terms and in 
facts ; and that if material force can be correlated so 
can mind-force ; and that as force is power, and 
power is will, the human and the Superhuman Will 
may be correlated like any other forces of universal 
Power. Syllogistically, we may say, that all forces 
may be correlated; all will is force; therefore, all 
will may be correlated. The human will and the 



Civilization is Superhuman. 



299 



SuRerhuman Will either agree or disagree ; in other 
words, are correlative. 

(-5) The superhuman and the collective human will 
It all human bemgs governed their lives by the direc- 
tion of Superhuman Will, they would progress to a 
Superhuman experience, which, if less than supernat 
ural, would be more than natural. From the begin- 
ning of history, we see that, as the motives of life 
become less superlmman, they of course become more 
human. As men relied upon their own wisdom, they 
sought less the wisdom of God. " By rae Kings reign 
and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and 
nobles, even all the judges of the earth. I love them 
that love me ; and those that seek me early shall find 
me." (Prov. viii., 15.) Civilization is supernatural so 
far as Supernatural Will controls human affairs, and is 
the motive of human conduct. When the Supernat- 
ural Will has its way with persons as it has with 
things, the correlation of the human will with the Su 
perhuman Will is complete, and all is peace, order and 
progress. But when the human will is filled with its 
own ways, all is war, disorder and destruction. This 
method of correlation is illustrated in the history of 
any long era of civilization. 

Civilization is the direct correlation of the two 
Wills— the human and the superhuman. Events are 
evolutions out of the domination of one or of the oth- 
er will, as the case may be. Under the Superhuman 
Wil highest progress is evolved ; under the human 
will lowest regress is evolved. Religious superstitions 
are groping in the direction of the Superhuman ; but 
superstitions are only human misinterpretations of the 
superhuman. Unintelligent nature never mistakes 



3 



oo T/ie Philosophy of the Super statural. 



the supernatural, ancT never makes false steps to be 
retraced, as man does. Civilization is a fact and must 
have a Factor. If civilization is a natural fact then, 
as the Factor must be above and before its fact, so 
this, as every natural fact, must have a supernatural 
Factor. The highest civilization is men and society 
at their best ; and the human is at its best when it is 
in accord with the superhuman — that is, when the 
derived will accepts its law from the underived Will. 
There can be no discord in true civilization. Human 
progress is a segment of some better whole — an echo 
of the harmony of the universe. Civilization is said 
to be evolved because circumstances render unstable 
its primitive condition, and instability is the occasion 
of all evolutionary and progressive changes. All so- 
cial elements are broken up ; social ideas change. 
New foreign relations change old domestic conditions. 
New opportunities change new enterprises. Revolu- 
tions readjust classes, interests and power. When, by 
experience, revelation, or the condition of environ- 
ment, the human Will correlates with or knows and 
obeys the Superhuman Will, then is the lifting of the 
human towards the Superhuman, as trees grow to- 
wards the sunlight. Nations have gone up or down 
with their creeds and their worships. There is cre- 
ative method of supernatural Will and intelligence in 
all inorganic, and in the creative and genetic forms of 
all unconscious organic nature. Here the manifesta- 
tions of evolutions are many, but the Power is one ; 
but between the human Will as force and the Super- 
human Will as Power, there is a correlation of Wills 
as Power and Force, but no evolution, as Mr. Spencer 
defines it. 



Nations and Creeds. ^qi 



o' 



_ Civilization is not an organism, but an organization 
in unstable equilibrium. It is the action of human 
will midst superhuman methods. The race is an ag- 
gregation, not an organism. Mr. Spencer thinks oth- 
erwise. (See F. P. § III.) What is organism? Any 
living unit, not an aggregate, is an organism ? A grain 
of wheat IS an organism, because it is a living and 
productive unit ; but a bushel of grains of wheat is 
not an organism, because as a bushel of wheat, it is 
not a living unit, but only an aggregate relation of 
living units. Unity only can have organism ; plurality 
may have system, but not organization. There is a 
celestial system, but not a celestial organism. There 
may be a social system, but there cannot possibly be 
a social organism. Organisms as individuals may 
descend from individual organisms; and oro-an 
isms may be related to organism ; but the Tela- 
tion of organisms cannot, because of the relation 
be Itself an organism. Some of the gravest errors in 
social science result from the confounding relation 
with organism. Society, as its name imports, is the 
companionship or unity of harmonious will. The form 
of companionship is purely constitutional, and com- 
panionship itself is natural. In some associations it 
IS enforced, as in monarchies ; in others it is called 
free, as in democracies ; in others, it is fraternal, as 
in perfect Christianity. 

Hasty utterances of modern thought restate the 
medieval error of confounding nominalism with real- 
ism -that is, giving to the relations of thino-g the 
name of things themselves. As society is only a name 
lor a conventional relation, and not of an entity it 
cannot be said except by metonomy, of putting one 



302 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



thing for another, to be either organic or inorganic. 
But science deals with realities, and not with figures 
of speech ; therefore to the scientist there can be no 
social organism as such — that is, social science is not 
the science of social organism, but only the science 
of the changeable relations of social units. Super- 
human power controls human affairs, if human affairs 
are under any extrinsic control at all. Natural Evo- 
lution is a process. Supernatural evolution, if any, 
is a method of control. The plan of nature is super- 
natural to nature. Intrinsic power evolves ; extrinsic 
power controls. Civilization, like everything else, is 
partly created, and figuratively genetic. The Person- 
al Will of supernatural power omnipresent in the uni- 
verse, originates the personal units of civilization by 
indirect, creative act ; and then leaves much to the 
human will as to the breadth and character of the so- 
ciety that follows. Supernatural Power begins hu- 
man life, to be worked out and watched by super- 
natural Power under natural conditions. 

The inverse correlations, illustrated by the four 
adjacent angles of the following Figure No. 3, show 
the movements of civilization for over three thous- 
and years. It will be observed that the correlation 
was not between the two reUgions, Polytheism and 
Monotheism, which were successive, not contempo- 
rary ; but between either of these with the civil basis 
of morality on the one side, and the speculative one 
of philosophy on the other. Speaking of this con- 
flict, Bagehot says : " Those kinds of morals and thaf^ 
kind of religion which tend to make the foremost 
and most effectual character are sure to prevail, all 
else being the same ; and creeds or systems that con- 



Three ThozLsand Years of Civilizatio^i, -,o^ 



j^o 



duce to a soft, limp mind tend to perish, except some 
hard extrinsic force keep alive. Thus Epicureanism 
never prospered at Rome (though C^sar, Lucretius 
and Horace were Epicureans), but Stoicism did ; the 
stiff, serious character of the great prevailing nation 
was attracted by what seemed a confirming creed, 
and deterred by what looked like a relaxing creed! 
The inspiriting doctrines fell upon the ardelit char- 
acter, and so confirmed its energy. Strong behefs 
win strong men, and make them stronger. Such is, 
no doubt, one cause why Monotheism tends to pre- 
vail over Polytheism ; it produces a higher, steadier 
character, calmed and concentrated by a great single 
object; it is not confused by competing rites, or dis- 
tracted by miscellaneous deities. Polytheism is 
religion in commission, and it is weak accordingly. 
But it will be said, the Jews, who were Monotheists,* 
were conquered by the Romans, who were Polythe- 
ists. Yes, it must be answered ; because the Romans 
had other gifts ; they had a capacity for politics, a 
habit of discipline, and of these the Jews had not the 
least. The religious advantage was an advantage, 
but it was counter-weighed."^ 

On the following page will be found a figure illust- 
ratmg the correlative movements of events for three 
thousand years, beginning with polytheism at and 
before the time of Moses, fifteen hundred years before 
Christ, and coming on down to the fifteenth century 
after Christ; with a statement of general principles and 
results at either side; with such deductions under- 
neath as are explanatory of the conclusions reached. 

{a) Physics and Politics, 767. 



04 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



Fig. 3. 
Ancestral Worship. 



Mythology 



Maximum of Religion. 
Maximum of Morality. 
Minimum of State Power. 



The State displaces Polytheism 
and disunites civil and relig- 
ious laws. 



The basis of morality and law 
changes from the ■will of the 
gods to the collective will of 
men, as a State. 



Minimum of Religion. 1 
Maximum of State Power. \ 
Maximum of Immorality. J 



Ten Persecutions. 



The basis of morality and law 
changes from the wUl of the 
State to the will of the one 
God. 



The Dark Ages. 



Europe Christianized. 

Outof 173 Ld. Chancellors, 123 
have been Bishops. 



Civil and Religious law united 
in Canon Law. 



Minimum of State Power] 

in Morality. 1 

Maximum of Religion. j 

Maximum of Morality. J 




Judaism. 
Christianity. 



C Maximum of Religion. 
\ JIaximum of Morality. 
[Minimum of Philosophy. 



Philosophy displaces Poly- 
theism. 



1. Personal basis for morality. 

—Socrates. 

2. Impei-sonal nature basis. 

—Zend. 



f Minimum of Religion. 
\ Maximum of Philosophy. 
[Maximum of Immorality. 



School of Philosophy closed at 
Athens, A. D. 526. 



Monotheism displaces Philoso- 



The Schoolmen change Philos- 
ophy into Theology. 



Supernatural basis for Moral- 
ity. 



f Jlinimum of Philosophy as 
such. 
Maximum of Religion. 
Maximum of Morality. 



Force is Will. ^05 



From the foregoing figure, we observe, first, that 
when Polytheism is at its maximum, the State is at 
its minimum ; and that as the State maximizes, Poly- 
theism correctively minimizes, and so does morality 
Second, that when Polytheism is at its maximum, 
Philosophy is at its minimum ; and that as Polytheism' 
minimizes, Philosophy correctively maximizes, and 
so does immorality. Third, that, with the State at 
Its maximum and Philosophy at its maximum and 
Polytheism at its minimum, there is a reverse move- 
ment; and that while the State is at its maximum 
Monotheism is at its minimum ; the State minimizes 
while Monotheism maximizes, and so does morality 
Fourth, that while Philosophy is at its maximum 
Monotheism is at its minimum ; and that as Philoso- 
phy minimizes. Monotheism maximizes, and so does 
morality. 

Omnific forces all things fill; 
All will is force ; all force is will. 
No will or force was first in man ; 
Another was whence his began. 



20 



LECTURE VII. 



METHOD OF PERSISTENCE. 

Mr. Spencer says (F. P. § 59) "^^e persistence of 
force is an ultimate truth of which no inductive 
proof is possible ;" yet as (in § 58) he says, '' the quan- 
tity of force remains always the same," it must of 
course persist. To be is to continue. It is the order 
to '' gather up the fragments that remain, that noth- 
ing be lost. If Power manifests all things, and all 
things go back into the manifesting Power; then 
Power persists producing, recalling, and reproducing 
forms of itself. This is quite near the Buddhistic 
doctrine of emanation and reabsorption, if it is not 
the doctrine itself. But we are not manifestations of 
impersonal, but of personal Power. If human per- 
sonality disappears, it reappears or expands into 
superhuman personality; illustrating the doctrine, 
that '' we go on to perfection," even '' partaking of the 

divine nature." 

The persistence of force— unsconscious force-- 
is one of the confident assumptions of science. Ac- 
cording to the definition of force, the mind or soul is a 
force, as we shall see. Will the soul-force persist as 
such? 



Nature Ever Gains. ^o' 



Another law, universally and invariably true is 
that what is called death of each, is again of the sue' 
ceeding whole. All other things gain by dying ; why 
should not man ? The soul is self-created, or it is 
created by another. If self-created, it is a power to 
Itself forever. If it is created by another, then that 
other can take care of it in the future, as it has in the 
past. So, whether we exist of ourselves, or by the 
will of another, there is within and behind us an im- 
mortahzing power, looking, to say the least, in the 
direction of immortality, and showing its possibility 
But IS there a probability of it,? When the body 
dies, we see no soul depart, nor has one ever come 
back to give evidence of its disembodied existence 
But in this, as in everything else, the past answers 
for the future. Though no one can have a present 
expertence, in the body, of a future state out of the 
body, yet the reasoning from present physical phe- 
nomena to future physical phenomena is neither dif- 
ferent nor more certain than "that from the present 
existence of the soul to the continued future existence 
of the soul. The rising of the life-bearing sun to 
morrow cannot, in the nature of things, be a matter 
of observation to-day. In the omnipresence and om- 
nipotence of law, by which both matter and mind con 
tmue to progress, we have as much certainty of the 
contmuance of the individual immortality of the soul 
as we have of anything in the future. 

But, as we have said, we cannot possibly answer 
experimentally now a question whose solution must 
be entirely in the future. Do we not live now under 
a law of persistence, by which it is seen that we must 



3o8 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



live hereafter ? We exist now, and why should we not 
continue to exist? We expect to exist to-morrow, 
and why should we not expect to exist one hundred 
or a million of years hence? In the life of the race, 
we have not only an expectation and a start in exist- 
ence, prophetic of its continuance, but in our present 
lives, as conscious individuals, we have already en- 
tered upon immortality. We are in the grasp of the 
law of persistence, and those who deny immortality, 
must prove conclusively that the law has been re- 
pealed, and the grasp released. In short, the doctrine 
of immortality cannot be disproved. 

According to materialism the individual has no im- 
mortality in himself. Out of himself his race or type 
only persists.^ But so far as science can establish a 
principle of continuity or persistence of beings in time, 
it helps religion to a line of reasoning, which points 
to their persistence in eternity. ' We are conscious 
beings, and therefore shall be: Life once begun must be 
supposed to continue, hot only in this world, but also 
in the next, unless it be proved to have ceased. Some 
say that this proof is made when the material body 
has no longer life in it. But the separation of the 
soul from the body cannot be a cessation of the exist- 
ence of the soul, for this separation partially takes 
place every second, and yet we live. At no two mo- 
ments do we have the same bodies, though ever the 
same souls. As our entire bodies are new every 
seven years, as it is said, while our life and conscious- 
ness are one and the same, it is evident that we do not 

{d) " So careful of the type she seems, 

So careless of the single life."— Tennyson. 



Conscious Force Pei^sists. 300 



give up our consciousness when we give up our bod- 
ies, in what we call life, aud why should we be held 
to give it up when we give up our bodies in what we 
call death ? 

We have said that whatever moves matter is force 
We also say that mind moves matter; therefore mind 
is force. Again they say, all force is imperishable • 
all mmd is force; therefore all mind is imperishable' 
This proves that mind, as force, is imperishable. 
Ihis much IS settled. But, it is asked, as the horse 
has mind, why is not the mind-force of the horse im 
perishable? This raises the question as to the form 
or mode m which force is imperishable. Mind-force 
is both conscious and personal in man, and uncon- 
scious and impersonal in brute animals. 

I. Conscious, personal mind-force persists. As said 
before, each one is conscious, that his mind is his own 
and continuous. Each one has the same reason to 
beheve in the individuality and continuous person- 
ahty of his own mind, that he has to believe in its 
existence. And we may as well expect the mind 
Itself to perish, as to expect its individuality, con- 
sciousness, and personal continuance to perish. We 
know that we know ; in other words, we are con- 
scious, and therefore immortal. The exercises of the 
mmd arise and vanish, and are each separate and dis- 
tinct from others in their appearance ; but the same 
mind IS in and through them all, and holds them all 
in its one consciousness. The thought which was 
yesterday or last year in consciousness, and the con- 
scious thought of to-day are both recognized as being 
in the same self-consciousness. The self-conscious- 



3 1 o The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



ness has not changed, while the exercises have been 
coming- and departing. The mind thus remains in its 
own identity yesterday and onward into the future, 
perpetuating the same mind. Through all develop- 
ment of its faculties, in all states, the mind itself 
neither comes nor goes, but retains its self-sameness 
through all changes. Its phenomenal experience 
varies in time, but itself perdures through all time." 
(Hickok, Science of the mind from Consciousness, 

Chap. I, p. 3-) 

'' Consciousness has been very differently appre- 
hended by different writers, and certainly not seldom 
misapprehended. Some have considered it as scarce- 
ly to be distinguished from personal identity ; others 
as a separate faculty for knowing the action of all 
other mental powers ; and others again as the com- 
plement and connection of all mental exercises, inas- 
much as they are all held in one consciousness. Con- 
sciousness is doubtless ever one in the same person, 
otherwise some actions would be in one conscious- 
ness, and some in another, and man's life could never 
be brought into one experience. But this does by no 
means confound consciousness in personal identity, 
for identity continues in and through a great number 
of states of consciousness." (Ibid. 88.) 

Consciousness persists because, first, it is intelligent 
Power, and Power is immaterial, uncompounded, 
and, therefore, indissoluble ; and second, because it is 
at the summit of being, and survives as the fittest. 
Consciousness is either inherent in matter, or it is an 
independent Power. If it inheres in matter, it inheres 
in each and every atom, or in a combination of atoms. 
If it inheres in a combination of atoms, then it must 



The Soul is Indzscerptzble, 311 



inhere in each atom ; for, as nothing can communicate 
what it has not, each atom must have inherently in 
itself the consciousness which it communicates to a 
combinations of atoms. As consciousness is person- 
ality, if each atom is conscious, each man is not one 
person, but as many persons as there are atoms in his 
body. But as our bodies are no two seconds the same, 
if each atom is conscious, and, therefore, a person, we 
are not only a congress, but an endless procession of 
persons, which is inconceivable. The nature of every 
cause must decide its effects ; but, as we cannot con- 
ceive of anything being and not being at the same 
moment, so the nature of unconsciousness cannot in- 
elude consciousness; and unconsciousness cannot, 
therefore, be the cause of consciousness as an effect. 
If consciousness be indivisible, it cannot be an inhe- 
rent energy in divisible matter. 

Consciousness can become extinct in only one of 
three ways: first, either by dissolution, which is im- 
possible, as consciousness is a single, not a compound 
substance, and cannot be dissolved ; or, second, by 
privatio7t of a part of its essence ; but as consciousness 
has no parts, it can be deprived of none ; or, third, by 
annihilation; but this could only be by its own act, 
which is not supposable, or by the external act of 
God, whose existence materialists deny. 

As a principle of unity, the soul is indiscerptible 
and indestructible; as a principle of motion, it is 
incapable of rest ; as a principle of vital force, it is 
incapable of annihilation ; as a self-conscious princi- 
ple, it is incapable of oblivion.^ 



{d) Heard's Tripartite Nature of Man, p. 3. 



'' 1 2 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



o 



The immortality of the soul is not impossible from 
any connection with matter, for it is not matter. As 
nature, it is said, can make no leaps, unconscious 
matter could never have become conscious matten 
That matter should think is unthinkable. The body 
changes constantly, but never the consciousness. 
Each persists or not by its own laws. Herbert 
Spencer says that there is no conceivable kind of 
consciousness which does not imply continued exist- 
ence as its datum.'' Nature confines some life in 
unconsciousness below. Supernature enlarges other 
life in consciousness above. 

If consciousness or the soul itself be an effect, then 
it persists ; for all effects not only succeed, but sur- 
vive their causes. The soul or mind is something, 
or it is nothing. If it be nothing, then as nothing it 
cannot be destroyed. If it cannot be destroyed, then 
it must be something, for destruction implies some- 
thing to be destroyed. But if it be something, it 
cannot be destroyed ; for while nature changes all 
things that are changeable, she destroys nothing that 
she values as anything. The soul to be a soul must 
retain its individual and conscious personality. But 
in an)^ view we may take, immorality is sure. We 
see the proof of it in this, among other considera- 
tions : Consciousness makes a person and distin- 
guishes man in the scale of being, whether he be an 



{a) First Prin., chap. VI.. sec. 62. See in the Popular Science Monthly 
for July, 1878, a most admirable article, by R. G. Eccles, Esq., on the 
" Radical Fallacy of Materialism," wherein he says, at the conclusion of 
a line of most convincing argument : " If we declare matter and energy 
to be eternal, then we must declare the same of consciousness." p. 360. 



Nature Changes by Advancing, 313 



original type or a derived individual ; whether he be 
the fountain or the issuing stream. If man derives 
this being, it must be from some underived conscious 
cause. If he originates his own consciousness, he 
creates it as a God, and he can continuously transmit 
it as a God. In his consciousness, man shows that 
he is either descended by creation from some con- 
scious God, or that, in consciousness, he is himself 
a God to his conscious descendants. Therefore, 
whether he begins in a God as a source of conscious 
being, or a God begins in him as a source of con- 
scious being, he is immortal, for nothing divine ever 
dies. 

Does nature change by receding or advancing? 
Does she ever tear down anything except to build 
up its elements in something better? When she de- 
composes vegetable life, is it not to build up animal 
hfe ? If our consciousness be destroyed, must it not 
be for some condition above consciousness? What 
do we know of the origin of life? of organization? 
of the connection between matter and mind ? What 
^^ do know is limited, but what we do not know is 
unlimited.^ 

Does matter mentalize itself, or mind materialize 
Itself? Evolutionists have never answered the ques- 
tion whether the ^g^ preceded and was adapted to 
the chicken, or the chicken to the ^gg-, whether the 
male was made before and for the female, or the 



{a) See Dr. Montgomery's " Monera, or the Problem of Life," Pop. 
Science Monthly, August, 1878 ; Supplement Pop. S. M., May, 1878, 
Virchow, 12, 73 ; also, July number, p. 334 ; Tyndall, Address. Norwich! 
1868. 



3 1 4 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



female before and for the male ; whether the honey 
was made for the bee or the bee for the honey. The 
Unknown is vast indeed ! Do not all things advance ? 
If advance seems to be in accordance with a law of 
nature in the past, who can prove that it has been 
repealed as to the future. 

But, it is asked, if nature tears down the vegeta- 
bles on one plane to build up the animals on a higher 
plane, why should not the brute develop into some- 
thing above itself? If man can become an angel, 
why not the brute become a man? If, as according 
to the analogy of nature, conscious man is to be 
lifted into some power above consciousness, ought 
not the unconscious brute to be lifted above itself 
into consciousness? If, as asked, development is to 
be expected in men, so it ought to be expected in 
brutes. 

While we can look below us and see that no brute 
ever does become man, we cannot look above us in the 
same way to see what a man may expect to become. 
Immortality is necessarily to be expected from na- 
ture in either man or brutes, or both, unless she can 
be stupid enough to stop in sight of what would glo- 
rify her most. If she can produce life for awhile in 
man and brute, why not forever? Has not nature as 
much reason to go on as she had to begin? And since 
beginning, has nature not in fact steadily advanced, 
and held every gain ? As to thinking animals, no in- 
telligence short of consciousness is considered a gain. 
At least we have no knowledge of it. Whatever 
mind the brutes may have, so far as we now know, 
seems limited to their animal wants. It is directive, 



Nature Preserves its Best Things. 315 



notj-eflective. But man has mind for far more. Brute 
mind is imperishable, only as an impersonal, uncon- 
scious mode of force, in the same grade of force it is 
now ; but lacking- consciousness, it is perishable as in- 
dividual mind. The mind-force of man must persist 
in its consciousness if it persists at all. It is con- 
sciousness which lifts mind from a mode or manifesta- 
tion of force into force itself. Conscious mind is 
force. 

Nor in distinguishing between impersonal individu- 
ality and individual personality, do we make a distinc- 
tion without a difference ? Consciousness is the grand 
difference between impersonal individuality and indi- 
vidual personality, and is a new order of existence. 
Nature preserves its best things, and these only. If 
It preserves not consciousness, what else would it pre- 
serve ? 

When brutes die, the intelligent but unconscious 
force that was individualized in them for a time, obeys 
the law of all unconscious, unpersonalized force, and 
losing whatever individuality it may have exhibited 
when it has performed any special work, is correlated 
backmto something else, or reabsorbed; as, after 
electricity has been captured and made to fire' guns, 
ring bells, explode mines, and carry messages across 
vast oceans and broad continents, it drops its tempo- 
rary mode of individuality, and lapsing back like a 
wave of the sea, becomes again an undistinguishable 
part of electricity elsewhere, or is correlated into 
heat. Individuality was no part of its nature, but 
only an impersonal, unconscious temporary manifes- 
tation of it. So the individualized mind of the brute, 



3 1 6 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



not having gained consciousness, or enough to lift it 
into the higher order of personalized force, drops its 
individuality when its animal work is done, as a tree 
or an oyster drops its individuality ; and being only 
unconscious force, is conservated, like any other un- 
conscious force, by correlation or reabsorption. But 
the personality of man, including the transient indi- 
viduality common to the brute, and also a conscious- 
ness which is peculiar to man, is a vast flight upward ; 
and manifests, if it does not originate, as before said, 
a new order of force in which individuality, now 
lifted into personality, persists. Consciousness, or 
life, on nature's highest terrace, is a gain to be con- 
servated, if any is to be conservated. To individual- 
ity there has been superadded, in conscious intelli- 
gence, moral power and spiritual responsibility, all 
that \s meant by personality. Nature advances as 
much in moving from unconsciousness to conscious- 
ness, as she does when the animal kingdom rises 
above the vegetable kingdom. Is there a greater dif- 
ference between these kingdoms than there is between 
conscious man thinking about his thought, and the 
unconscious brute thinking only about his mate and 
his food? If the law of progress be admitted, then 
immortality begins where consciousness begins, and 
ends where it ends. Disembodied life is not new in 
the nature of things, if mind preceded matter. Con- 
scious mind is either a mode of matter, or it is above 
matter. If above, it can survive in the future, as in 
the past, the absence of that which is beneath it. If 
mind be a mode of matter, it must be a supreme 
mode, conscious, individual, and personal ; and as 



Personality is Human. 317 



such, it must exist forever, because no matter per- 
ishes. If, in other words, matter becomes a person, 
then as personalized matter it is imperishable. If 
matter becomes conscious, then it must exist as con- 
scious matter." 

As said before, every person is an individual, but 
every individual is not a person. We cannot tran- 
scend our personality. A person is an individual that 
is conscious of his individuality— a thinker conscious 
of his thought— one who knows that he knows. A 
stone or a piece of metal is an individual mass or 
lunjp which may be separated into parts, each of 
which shall continue to have the same quahties as the 
whole. That which cannot be parted into several 
things of the same nature is an individual whole ; 
as, for instance, a seed, a plant or an animal, when sep- 
arated into parts, loses its identity or individuality, 
which is not retained by any of its parts. We refuse 
personality to a stone or a metal, because these things 
exist for others and not for themselves. We refuse 
it also to a mere animal, because, though it may have 
individuality, it is not conscious of its individuality. 
We ascribe personality to man because that which he 
is, he is for himself, and has consciousness of it. Con- 
sciousness, or the ability to study our own minds, 
pre-eminently distinguishes man from the brute— the 
personalized individual from the non-personalized 
individual. It is the dividing line between imperish- 
able personality and perishable individuality. Until 
personaHty is attained, there is no such individuality 
as needs or does persist. Though consciousness is 
not in itself a force, yet,when force becomes conscious. 



3 1 8 The Philosophy of the Sniper natural. 



consciousness persists with the persistence of the force 
that manifests it. 

It is true that the individual or unconscious animal 
part dies, but not the conscious or personal part. 
The unconscious die and not the conscious? We 
can conceive of no consciousness that does not con- 
tinue. To resolve personal consciousness back into 
impersonal unconsciousness is not to correlate or 
transform, but to destroy it, and nature destroys 
nothing. 

Nature destroys the individuality of the brute at 
its death ; that is she drops it but seems not to con- 
sider the obliteration of any individuality short of 
conscious individuality, rising into personality, as a 
destruction or loss. We repeat, consciousness is at 
the summit of all things, and it is consciousness that 
makes individuality a type, and so a gain. Person- 
ality is equal to a type, but if personal consciousness 
does not persist, then it is a total loss, and nature 
works in vain, preserving her lower, impersonal 
types, and annihilating her highest personal, con- 
scious, individual type. Such an exhibition of power, 
such vacillating weakness of purpose, and such per- 
mission of loss, if not wanton destruction, would 
proclaim nature to be an idiot and a suicide. She 
may convert impersonal and unconscious force, and 
exalt conscious force, but not destroy it. The ele- 
ments of everything that dies can be and are used 
over again, such as the carbon and other elements in 
the animal body ; but that which cannot be used 
over again does not die. The consciousness of one 
cannot be used again in the consciousness of another, 



Impersonal Force Persists as Impersonal. 3 1 9 



and iinless each man's consciousness persists under 
all changes, then consciousness, which is the most 
exalted of facts, must perish altogether. Does nature 
in anything else so destroy its best work? It is in 
consciousness that man is in the likeness of God, or 
whatever is supreme above him. In the pyramid of 
stars surmounted by the sun all serve and glorify the 
one at the top; as in the universe, consciousness 
looks down upon all unconscious forms below it. 

Brutes are not immortal, because, while they have 
mdividuality they have not consciousness, or any- 
thing that nature cares to preserve, except their 
material elements. Having no conscious personality, 
they must forever remain in the class of impersonal 
things, and be correlated or transmitted from one 
impersonal thing to another. Below personal indi- 
viduality, no individuality persists. . 

2. Unconscious, impersonal mind-force persists. If the 
mind force of the horse is conscious, he cannot assert 
It. Lower animals, as the horse, the dog, the ele- 
phant, the beaver, and such insects as the bee, have 
intelligence and memory, but we have no knowledge 
that they are conscious. Those who affirm their 
consciousness must prove it. We are severally con- 
scious of our own consciousness; but we are neither 
conscious of the consciousness of another man, nor 
can we prove the consciousness of another man or 
of an animal. Nature has not yet been so unmerciful 
to the horse as to make him conscious of his lot. In- 
stinct is not consciousness. We are conscious that 
we are men and not lower animals, but we have no 
evidence that they think anything about it. But 



320 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



consciousness or no consciousness, settles the ques- 
tion of the brute animal's immortality. The differ- 
ence between these two kinds of force is this, as said 
before. The man thinks and he thinks about his 
thought — he knows that he knows — he is conscious of 
his consciousness. The horse thinks, but he does not, 
from all we can judge, think about his thought. He 
may know, but he does not know that he knows. If 
he was conscious of his strength, he would kick into 
eternity the brutal wretches who inhumanly mistreat 
him ; and yet, as the man belongs to a grade of im- 
mortal creatures, he is to be imperishable in his per- 
sonality and the poor horse imperishable in his 
impersonality. As men are to be men in eternity, 
the horse may be thankful that he is not to be a horse 
in eternity. If the elephant was conscious of his 
strength— if the lion was conscious or knew how to 
rend his iron barriers, how terrible would be his 
revenge. If all animals in the lower plane are to 
serve man on the higher plane, consciousness must 
be denied them. Man knows, captures and bridles 
the lightning, because it does not know how to resist. 
The conscious must ever be master of the uncon- 
scious. 

Conscious mind-force belongs exclusively to man, 
making him a person\ and unconscious mind-force 
belongs equally to brutes ; leaving them in the class 
of thinking but unconscious impersonal things. 

We have seen that each man has in himself two 
orders of force: a conscious, personalizing, regula- 
tive mind-force, as seen in his will, elevating him into 
a person ; and an unconscious, impersonal, regulated 



The Impersonal Persists as such. 



321 



™^ u K^^'u' ^' '""" '" ''^^ '^^^t °f his material body 
which he has in common with mere things. The 
brute has the same two orders of force, but its mind- 
lorce IS as unconscious as its matter-force. Its intel 
ligence is called instinct, and only directive not 
reflective, and is limited, unconscious, impersonal 
and without moral responsibility. 

Impersonal mind-force persists as impersonal. The 
mind-force of the horse as of the man is imperishable 
for exactly what it is, and not for what it is not It 
IS impersonal mind-force here, and will be imperish 
able as impersonal mind-force hereafter. Man s mind" 
force IS personal mind-force here, and will be imper" 
ishable as personal mind-force hereafter. If the 
men a force of the horse is unconscious and imper' 
sonal force nere, why should it be a conscious and 
personal force hereafter ? If a horse is not a person 
here wh should it be immortal as a person^hTe 
after ? It may be said that this is hard on the horse • 
but you must question evolution about that, if you 
deny a God ; and if you do not deny a God, then you 
should not question the God which you admit. Now 
comes he question, why should the impersonal mind 
sorb'ed o r " '°" ''' -dividualit; and be reab- 

electrtitv V^ IT^'"""'' '""'^'^ ''"^^ gravitation, or 
electricity, and the personal mind-force of man be 

preserved as personal, individual force? 

The proposition is that all force is imperishable • 
but that not all individualized quantities or mamfes' 
?t r A boTtI ^'■^'"P--'^^ble in individual quat 
titles A bottle of electricity is an individualized 
quantity of electricity; the electricity as a force whI 

11 



2 2 The Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



be preserved, but not the individualized quantity as 
an individuality. Strictly speaking, individuality 
cannot be predicated of anything inorganic. It is 
only by way ot accommodation that we can individ- 
alize portions of the elements or speak of a bottle of 
electricity, or a quart of oxygen or of hydrogen, or 
a pound of gravitation, or a yard of space, or a hand- 
ful of water. We may enclose space, but we do not 
individualize it. The individual is the indivisible. 
The thoughts of all animals are their individual 
thoughts, but until inteUigence is developed into con- 
scious intelligence, nature does not preserve its indi- 
vidualities. This is proved by the law and the facts 

of the case. 

It is a law of nature to hold all gains. The uncon- 
scious impersonal intelligence of impersonal animals 
was a great gain, and Nature holds it exactly as she 
gains it— an unconscious impersonal, intelhgence. 
But the conscious, personal intelligence of man was a 
greater gain, and Nature holds that exactly as she 
gains it— as conscious, personal, individual intelli- 
gence. The unconscious intelligence of the horse 
and the conscious intelligence of man are imperish- 
able, exactly as force. That which is once a force is 
always a force. That which is once a conscious 
mind-force is always a conscious mind-force. A 
person once is always a person. If consciousness 
has been added to mind-force and mmd-force is 
imperishable, of course its essential consciousness 
is as imperishable as the force to which it is 
essential, is imperishable. As the outside is imper- 
ishable, so must be the inside ; and so, if the mind is 



Conscious Ltdividtiality Persists. 



Z^7y 



imperishable as a force, all must be imperishable that 
belongs to it as mind. As we have said before, nature 
holds Its gains. When nature rose from homogeneity 
to heterogeneity— from genera to species-from spe- 
cies to conscious individuals — it held its gains 
Force once an individualized person, is individual- 
ized forever. We know that we have minds only by 
our consciousness ; but we are as conscious of our 
individuality as we are of having minds at all. Each 
IS conscious that his mind is his own and not that of 
another. If our consciousness knows our mind at 
all it knows It to be essentially individual, and there- 
fore personal. To obliterate the individuality of the 
mind of man, is to obliterate the mind itself • a hu 
man mind without individuality is no human 'mind 
But the mind is a force— an individualized force- 
and, as a force, cannot be obliterated ; therefore the 
individuality of the human mind cannot be oblit- 
erated. 

Individuality belongs to it as mind-force. In other 
words, if the whole force is imperishable all its essen- 
tial characteristics, such as consciousness, are imper- 
ishable. Unconscious mind-force in time will be 
unconscious mind-force in eternity. Personality re- 
tains Its individuality ; impersonality drops it at 
death. To impersonality, individuality is accidental 
I o personality, individuality is essential. It is con 
scious force that individualizes force, and it is con- 
scious individual force that personalizes force • and 
personal force once is personal force always. 

A jar of electricity, though losing whatever indi- 
viduality It had as a separate quantitv of electricity 



324 The Philosophy of the Sitpernatural 



in the jar, does not lose, on being discharged, its force 
as electricity, but it does lose its individualization of 
quantity. It is reabsorbed into the totality of elec- 
trical force. All personality is individual, but all in- 
dividuality is not personal. Impersonal force ever 
continues to exist in the impersonal totality of force, 
and personal force exists as personal individual force, 
or not at all. If it is reabsorbed into the totality of 
impersonal force, it ceases to be a force at all ; for in- 
dividuality is its essence. A drop of the ocean is 
individual so long as it is a drop, but it loses its indi- 
viduality on being returned to the ocean. 

When nature advanced from whatever of intelligence 
may be claimed for the habits of plants, the lower in- 
telli^-ence of lower animals, we see that as nature 
came on up the ascensions of being, it made different 
kinds of mind-force, in the habit of plants, the instinct 
of some animals and the intelligence of others, and 
the consciousness of others. Consciousness is at the 
summit of intelligence. This consciousness of man 
makes him a person, and the want of this conscious- 
ness leaves the horse an impersonal creature. 

Place before your imagination a battery or a bottle 
of electricity, a vessel of water, and a living horse. 
You have a blind force in electricity, a blind force in 
chemic affinity, a blind force in gravitation, an intelli- 
gent force in the mind of the horse, and an intelligent, 
conscious force in your own mind. If you discharge 
the electricity through the water, the force of chemic 
affinity is overcome by the electric force, and the 
water is decomposed into its original elements of 
oxygen and hydrogen. If the circuit is complete, the 



Persistent Consciousness is TmmoiHality. 325 

electric force passes on into the horse and oT^i^^^ 
the mmd-force of the horse and kills the horse 

Thus your own conscious, mind-force has not only 
made blmd electric force overcome the blind cheraic 
force in water, and the impersonal, organic mind-force 
m the horse, but your conscious mind-force has per 

,> hftVI^.K ''"1!°''^.''^ electricity to go free. Can 
It be that these blmd forces, managed by man's con- 
scious force, shall be imperishable in their imperson- 
ality, and man's conscious mind-force that manages 
them, shall not be imperishable in its personality ? 

But notice, it was your personal mind-force that 
first captured, confined and then liberated the force 
of electricity. Personal mind force is master. It 
makes electricity dissolve compounds, carry mes- 
sages, turn wheels, lift weights and light up the world 
I his personal mind-force harnesses gravitation and 
niakes it do the work of countless millions of giants. 
It compels heat to work the engines of civilization and 
even to evolve electric force itself-in a word, the 
personal mmd-force of man, not the impersonal mind- 
lorce of the horse, masters all other forces 

At this point, let us resume the consideration of 
the persistence of conscious, personal mind-force as 
a soul-force.^ 

3- The persistence of conscious, personal mind-force is 
zmmortaluy. Personal mind-force persists as personal 
mmd-force. That which supernaturally exists in any 
form supernaturally persists in some form Un 
conscious things such as vegetables and brute ani- 

(a) See pp. 309-319. 



326 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



mals change their form and disorganize, but do not 
destroy any of their atomic substance. Conscious 
persons change their substance, as from the physical 
to the psychical, but not their form. This change is 
progressive, not destructive. 

The argument is that the mind, whether of man or 
of beast, is imperishable in the persistence of force. 
We claim not only that the persistence of force proves 
the imperishableness of the mind as force, but that the 
persistence of consciousness shows the mind of men 
to be individually and personally imperishable, and 
the mind-force of the horse perishable as an uncon- 
scious individuality, but imperishable as an imper- 
sonal force. Consciousness immortabzes the individ- 
uality of individual intelligence. 

All force is not the same force. To our observa- 
tion there are two orders ; first, a mind-force, unde- 
rived and supreme in the Unoriginated Power-per- 
sonal, intelligent, conscious, and dominating all below 
it ; and second, matter-force, such as heat and gravi- 
tation impersonal, unconscious, uniritelhgent and 
secondary to all force above it. Scientists say now 
that there is but one force in all the universe, con- 
scious in mind and unconscious in matter. Though 
they do not prove this unity of force, yet, admitting 
it to be so as the last conclusion of science and for 
the sake of the argument, even then the unconscious, 
such as heat and electricity, must be a mode of the 
conscious, having its basis, as Herbert Spencer says, 
in Absolute Being, and not the conscious its basis in 
the unconscious. Even if all force is but eternal 
power in action, conscious in mind, unconscious in 



How is Pests tejice of Force P7'oved. -'27 



matter, it must ever go forward, but never backward. 
So that if matter-force cannot be annihilated, neither, 
u fortiori, c^n mind-force, of which matter-force is the 
unconscious, impersonal mode. 

How do you prove that any force is imperishable ? 
Scientists prove the imperishableness of any and of 
all force, by the fact as claimed that its quantity is 
fixed ; that is, that force can be neither increased nor 
diminished, neither created nor destroyed. Such is 
the theory by which scientists try to account for 
phenomena that they can, as yet, account for as well 
in no other way. 

Herbert Spencer says ^ ' the persistence of force is 
an ultimate truth of which no inductive proof is pos- 
sible.' Youmans says ' it is not without its difficul- 
ties, which time alone must be trusted to remove.'*^ 
Grove, Faraday, Stewart, LeConte and Bain assume, 
rather than attempt to prove, the doctrine of the con- 
servation of force. There is such correlation as heat 
into electricity, and of electricity into heat ; but we do 
not see gravitation correlated or transferred into any 
other manifestation of force, or of any other force 
into gravitation. Besides, if force can be and is ex- 
haustively correlated backwards and forwards, how 
can the theory of evolution be true, that everything 
progresses forever ? The constancy or inconstancy 
m the quantity of force depends upon whether its 
source is personal or impersonal, and this question 
of source must be first settled. Supreme Will may 

{a) First Principles, Chap, vi., § 59. 

{b) Introduction to Cor. and Con. of Forces, xiv. 



n 



28 TAe Philosophy of the Supernatural, 



will that there shall be what we call force, or supreme 
Will may be that force itself. If force, personal or im- 
personal, be the Will of a supreme Being, force cannot 
be a fixed quantity ; for supreme Will cannot be a 
fixed quantity ; and so, if the quantity of force be 
fixed, force cannot be will itself. Supreme Will can 
will all things except to will that it will not will. It 
is true that the Will that could will our personal wills 
into existence, and yet not be those wills, could will 
impersonal force into existence, and not be that force. 
A supreme Will may will that our mind-force be im- 
perishable ; but if there be no supreme Will, then our 
mind-force is necessary, and must be imperishable. 
That which necessarily began in the past, necessarily 
continues in the present, and will necessarily [con- 
tinue forever. Necessary evolution makes a neces- 
sary immortality. 

The manifestation of impersonal force, that is.. 
force manifested in things rather than in persons — 
such as the blind force of heat, electricity, or gravi- 
tation — is as an ocean of force lifted and broken at 
times into individual waves that lapse and subside 
into the infinite fullness. Personal or will force^ 
originating in the mind of an Infinite Person, is de- 
posited and perpetually correlated in the wills of 
finite, conscious persons. If a Person did not create 
force, force has certainly created a person ; for man 
is here. If there be no God, and unintelligent and 
unconscious eternal Force created everything, then 
it was indeed a miraculous leap for the conscious 
force manifested in every man's will, to come up out 
of what is called unconscious force lurking only in 



Quantity of Force is not Fixed. 329 



matter. If unconscious force originated everything, 
which one of its forces did the work? Did uncon- 
scious gravitation create everything? Did uncon- 
scious electricity create everything? Did uncon- 
scious chemical affinity create everything? If the 
quantity of force be fixed, who is to fix it ? If the 
quantity of force is fixed it is infinite. 

It is more logical, and not so difficult to suppose 
that creative Power, in originating and fixing the 
quantity of force, would have provided an infinite 
quantity, than to suppose that it would have experi- 
mented upon the possible insufficiency of a finite 
quantity. If nature had any plan to which it invari- 
ably worked, we might suppose that it would have 
known exactly how much and what kind of force it 
would need, and might, with good reason, have fixed 
Its quantity in finite limits ; but as Biickner, Vogt, 
Moleschott, and Haekell, deny that there is design 
or plan in nature, it could not, therefore, know how 
much force it might need in its blind work, and 
might well be expected to fix enough once for all, 
and make it infinite. Any way, nature, in the prodi- 
gahty of its works, seems to be quite confident of 
having enough stuff and force to keep up, and even 
extend, its phenomena. If there be no God, the quan- 
tity of force must be infinite or self-limited. But if 
any say that it is not infinite, then they must prove 
definitely how much less it is ; because if it be not 
mfinite it may be zero, and vanish entirely. Force is 
m the universe. Those who assert a given quantity 
must define and prove the quantity. The fact is, no 
one knows much about this thing called force. The 






30 Tke Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



definition of force here used is about as good as 
any, if not the best ; but keep in mind that we argue 
this question from the exclusive standpoint of science. 

So far as these authorities can settle it, force has 
its basis in Absolute Being. If this be so, the quan- 
tity of force is not necessarily fixed, but may vary 
with the decisions of His omnific will, and so tran- 
scend the domain and methods of science. 

Explain it as we may, it is a fact that all real ad- 
vances persist. Nature never recalls or intermits pro- 
gression ; never mistakes the end or the means ; 
never changes in vain ; never sees a reason to undo 
what she has once done ; never goes down, but always 
upward and forward. 

So much for phenomena from impersonal nature ! 
And yet there is no true explanation. The mind, 
accustomed to abstraction, is the dupe of an illusion 
when it takes laws for reahties. Laws are symbols 
of order — of Will ; they do not account for order. 

Mill says that to explain one law of nature by an- 
other, is simply to substitute one mystery for another. 
We can no more assign a reason for the more general 
laws than for the more partial.'' And yet, all reason- 
ing that proves anything for science, proves more 
for religion. 

For Nature, with her immanent, necessary instinct, 
does not perpetuate, as real gains, such transforma- 
tions as heat into electricity, or of electricity into 
heat ; of gases into rocks, or of rocks into gases ; of 
minerals into vegetables, or of vegetables into ani- 



{a) Mill's Logic, p. 276. 



Brides have Mind but no Sotcls. 33 1 



mals. In these ebbs and flows of matter, these work- 
ing correlations change everything and gain nothing 
that persists. 

Nature advances from chaos and gains organiza- 
tion ; she advances from vegetable life to animal life. 
These types are these gains. If they are not, what 
are ? If we mount by terraces, is not each terrace a 
gain in altitude, quality of atmosphere, and extent of 
view? Has not the man on top of the mountain 
gained much over the man at its base? 

The man at the top has gained, but not the brute 
in any grade, for whom sublimity is in vain. It 
needs no lofty tower or mountain-peak to enable it to 
study the stars in their courses. For it in vain the 
soft influence of the Pleiades, or the face of Orion or 
Arcturus. It aspires not from nature to supernature. 
All it wants is food. For it there need be no loom 
or spindles. It has appetites, but no desires. Its 
organization is low, and its future is limited. It 
never acts upon any ideas, except those which con- 
duce to Its two aims, its personal well-being and its 
propagation; consequently, we may conclude that its 
brain only resolves a certain class of forces, and that 
another class appreciated by men are not cognizable 
by the brute.^ Like the collodionized plate, the un- 
conscious self registers only one class of phenomena. 
The beast lives for itself, for its animal nature ; it has 
no other pleasures, for it has no other nature. A 
horse is indifferent to the rainbow, because the rain- 
bow in no way affects its well-being.*^ The human 

(a) Baring Gould's " Origin and Development of Religious Ideas " «;i 
{b) Ibid. 5. ^ . :) . 



332 The Philosophy of the Super natural, 

mind is open to a chain of pleasurable impressions, in 
no way conducive to the preservation of man's sen- 
sual being, and to the perpetuation of his race. He 
derives pleasure from harmonies of color, and grace 
of form, and from melodious succession of notes. 
His animal life needs neither. He is conscious of 
desires which the gratification of passion does not 
satisfy, for they are beside and beyond the animal 
instincts. Man derives his liveliest gratification and 
acutest pain from objects to which his animal con- 
sciousness is indifferent. The rainbow charms him. 
Why ? Because the sight conduces to the welfare of 
his spiritual being.'' The religious instinct, (which is 
a desire to follow out a law of our being) is the feel- 
ing of man after an individual aim other than that of 
his animal nature.^ Brute intelligence is not a con- 
scious intelligence, and therefore no gain. 

Does the the artist who moulds in clay, consider 
himself to have gained anything by the image which 
he breaks ? or the painter who thinks in chalk, any- 
thing in forms which he rubs out as soon as finished? 
Can nature be said to have gained anything in indi- 
vidualities which she ever most remorselessly extin- 
guishes? She makes the individual crystal, and 
dissolves it into gas. She shoots up countless blades 
of grass, and lifts up the forms of shrubs and trees, 
and draws them back dead into her mysterious work- 
shop. She quickens the pulse of insects, brutes and 
birds with individual life, and beats them down again 
in indistinguishable dust, leaving in the universe 

{d) Baring Gould's "Origin and Development of Religious Ideas," 5. 
\b) Ibid, 61. 



Unconsciotts Individuality does 7iot Persist. I'^'i 



neither memory nor trace of their individual, unper- 
sonalized existence. How do we account for this 
destructiveness of nature, then? Nature, as the sci- 
entists present her, uses mere grade and division in 
her manifestations, only as a working- convenience. 
Below conscious individuality, which we call person- 
ality, no individuality persists. In other words, 
nature does not regard nor prize mere unconscious 
individuality as a real advance or gain. If she did, 
she would not so invariably demolish her work. We 
do not destroy that which we value. If nature pro- 
gresses, she does not hold mere individuahty to be 
progress, or she would preserve it. We cannot pro- 
gress by going back along our own steps. A perish- 
ing man on the mountain top has gained nothing. 

Altitude, however high, whose material base may 
at any moment dissolve beneath the feet and destroy 
him, is no gam. If man can be lifted from off the 
mountain top, so that he can abide aloft, upheld by 
* Everlasting Arms,' whatever may crumble beneath 
him, then, and not till then, can he be said to have 
gained in the movements of existence. 

Though nature had made individual animals, auto- 
matic and intelligent, it had gained nothing until 
it gained consciousness. Why should the 'neces- 
sary, immanent instinct,' of which Biickner and oth- 
ers speak, having progressed so far, and, as they 
seem to think, have gained so much, not progress 
further and gain more? Why should it stop at an 
unconscious animal? We see that it did not. We 
see that it went on to the conscious man. Above 
conscious man there may yet be evolved an order 



334 ^^^ Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



as much brighter than conscious man as conscious 
man is above the unconscious horse. It is not impos- 
sible in this system for impersonal force to be used 
over again as personal in a personal organization. 
Or, why, having lifted the animal upward along the 
terraces of phenomena, and placed his feet in the 
frozen dust on the mountain top, not lift his feet still 
hio-her, and endow him with power to move like the 
stars, in individual and perpetual glory, above 

matter? 

It is said that an atom is matter, but the force of 
gravitation in an atom pulls from the centre of the 
atom. In imagination peel off the outside of that 
atom until you have got down to the centre. You 
have got down to force, have you not? But where 
is your matter? You have your force which must 
transcend matter, but your atom, which was matter, 
is gone. Let us not confound matter and force. 
They may be associated, but cannot be identical. 
The man in the saddle is not the same thing as the 
horse beneath him, which he guides with a bit and 
bridle. Force guides matter, but is not matter, unless 
a thing can be said to guide itself, when it is not itself, 
but something else. What is there so attractive in 
matter, or what in it so necessary to personality, that 
man must be chained to it forever? Blind nature, or 
' immanent necessary instinct,' knows no reason for 
beginning at matter more than at mind, or for stop- 
ping at matter or at mere mind. Why should it not 
rise and progress forever, and gain forever? If 
nature began at matter, why should it not go on to 
mind as we see it did ; and if it began in mind, why 



Endless Development. 3 ^ r 



shou4d it sink back into mere matter? The force 
that has brought it on from the past is neither ex- 
hausted nor bewildered, and can carry it on in the 
future. This rather proves that all matter is only 
manifestations of mind, as so many ancient and mod- 
ern philosophers have contended. For if matter is 
force and force is mind, then matter is mind, and so 
it is no longer. Individual phenomena are then only 
special and changing thoughts. 

We prove by admitted principles that men are 
more than a race of animals. It is contended that 
nature ever progresses and gains. Now, the mere 
animal must, according to this theory, be improved 
upon, and so on to the summit of being. If blind na- 
ture found its way from nothing to a conscious, rea- 
soning man, we can be quite sure that it knows its 
way lo an omniscient God. If a Personal Being did 
not create nature, nature has, in man, created a per- 
sonal being. As said before, there is a God at one end 
or the other of progress. The more unconscious things 
are at the beginning, the more conscious they must 
be m the end. Development cannot be stopped. If 
out of nihilism nature evolves life, why should it not 
out of life evolve immortality ? When nature begins, 
what is to stop it? If it creates many things both 
m kind and number, it is seen, in all that we ob- 
serve, to preserve the best. As between individuals 
and types and forces, is it not according to its most 
evident way of working that conscious mind-force, as 
the utilizer of all manifestations of force, should sur- 
vive as the fittest of all ? Whatever else may cease, 
we cannot suppose that consciousness as the supreme 



336 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



fact in the universe can cease. Nature never inverts 
the pyramid. Why should conscious, personal mind- 
force perish, and unconscious, impersonal matter-force 
survive ? In what is the immortal power of the one, 
and in what is the mortal weakness of the other ? Is 
impersonality superior to personality, or unconscious- 
ness to consciousness? Does the universal thinking 
of mankind put a thing above or on the same level 
with a person ? Is a stone superior or equal in the 
order of nature to Shakspeare, or a vial of electric- 
ity to David and Isaiah ? Is blindness the honor or 
the fact of nature ? Is a mole nearer the summit of 
her glory than is an eagle ? Is the idiot more the 
perfection of nature than Socrates? Such a prefer- 
ence on the part of nature, if it were possible, were 
the choice of a fool. When the impersonal force de- 
fines itself by leaping up into personal or will force, 
or unconsciousness awakens into consciousness, there 
would seem to be a gain indeed worth preserving, if 
anything is. In every sense and for every movement 
of nature, the personal, the conscious, the coherent, 
the definite, the moral would be the fittest, both for 
worth and for struggle. 

But it is insisted that the doctrine of the conserva- 
tion or persistence of force does not prove the 
immortality of the individual soul. Herbert Spencer 
says: ^ ' By the persistence of force, we really mean 
some power which transcends our knowledge and 
conception. The manifestations, as occurring either 
in ourselves or outside of us, do not persist ; but that 
which persists is the unknown cause of these manifes- 



{a) First Principles, chap, vi., § 60. 



EvohUion Necessitates Immortality. 



rd 



tatiohs. In other words, asserting the persistence of 
force IS but another mode of asserting an uncondi- 
tional reahty, without beginning- or end.' 

This must refer to the manifestation of blind unin 
telligent, impersonal force, such as heat, electricity 
and gravitation ; but as a force, mind and its work 
or manifestation, are one and the same. The mind is 
conscious that it is a power, force, or cause, unto 
itsell ; and, of course, takes no knowledge of itself as 
a mere manifestation, from any cause whatever 
known or unknown. In reasoning upon the immor- 
tality of the soul, from the law of the persistence of 
type, the persistence of consciousness, and the per 
sistence of force, three independent, if not conflicting 
lines of argument are pursued ; and we might Hve 
up either, if the sufficiency of the others is admitted 
1 hese arguments are either all true or all false • or 
one IS true and the others false. That all three 'are 
true, sonie will deny. If one be true, it matters not 
If the others be false. If all are false, as is assumed, 
the dilemma of the scientist is greatest of all Be 
cause as we know the soul to exist now as a supreme 
fact. If we fail by either or all of these, the best scien- 
tific arguments, to prove the immortality which we 
a^rra, then they must prove the mortality which they 
affirm. To prove that anything exists, raises the pre- 
sumption of its perpetual continuance, underany and 
every possible change. If any deny the presumption 
they must prove their denial. The failure to prove 
the immortality of the soul does not establish its mor 
tality. The existence of the soul in life is admitted 
to be the most exalted force in the universe. If any 

11 y 



338 The Philosophy of the Supernaturao. 



admit that the unconscious, impersonal force, such as 
electricity or heat, persists, though its presence may 
be concealed, a fortiori they must admit that the 
greater, more intelligent force ol the conscious, per- 
sonal soul must persist, though its presence may be 
concealed. Disappearance, in neither case, is de- 
struction. The affirmation that it ceases to exist 
after death must be proved as an independent propo- 
sition, by th-e one who makes it. To say that we have 
no knowledge of it after death, is no proof that it has 
ceased to be. Change is not annihilation. Force 
does not cease because it changes its manifestations, 
or conceals its presence. When heat is changed into 
electricity, no force is destroyed. The traveler is not 
dead because he is out of sight. Existence does not 
depend on manifestation. Light reveals this world, 
but it conceals all others. What death is, no one 
can tell another. It is a secret for each. But 
science proclaims that everywhere within its search- 
ing vision life is triumphant. Reason eagerly ex- 
plores the field of our own future probabilities, and 
revelation certifies and glorifies the fact of human im- 
mortality. Life is omnipresent. No part of this uni- 
verse is dead. Life is triumphant. It must be the 
master, or all things would end. Life is continuous. 
The one living grain of wheat expands itself into a 
hundred lives. Death is the last enemy, and life the 
last friend, in the eternal economy. 

But, it is objected, admitting a brute to be a mere 
impersonal individual, and man to be distinguished 
by having his individuahty hfted into what is under- 
stood as personal consciousness, and admitting that 



Aristotle s Constructive R 



eason. 1 1 



339 



the soul of man, as mind-force, cannot be annihilated 
It IS still contended that death obliterates its Individ' 
uahty and personality, and reduces both the mind of 
the impersonal brute and the mind of the personal 
man to the same impersonal level of the one universal 
force. It IS contended that both are manifestations 
ot torce, and are reabsorbed into the totalitv of all 
force. This doctrine of emanation and reabsorption 
was taught by Aristotle three hundred and fifty years 
before, and reproduced by Averroes, an Arabian 
Philosopher of Spain, one thousand two hundred 
years after Christ, and has been held by the Hindoos 
in all ages. Is it not Herbert Spencer's theory, too ? 
V\^ith Aristotle, Constructive Reason," as distin 
guished from Passive Reason," which receives the 
impression of external things, and perishes with the 
body transcends the body, and is capable of separa- 
tion from it. This Constructive Reason is one indi- 
vidual substance, or universal soul, being one in 
bocrates, Plato, and other individuals.' Each has a 
part of the whole, whence it follows, according- 
to this theory, that individuality consists only in 
bodily sensations, which are perishable : so that noth- 
ing which is individual, such as sensations, can be 
immortal, and nothing which is immortal, as the uni- 
versal soul, can be individual. 



(a) Herbert Spencer calls this 'Absolute Being,' 'Unknown Cause,' 
Power Force, ' Unconditioned Reality, without Beginning or End ' 

The Athenians call it ' The Unknown God.' 

(b) Herbert Spencer calls this ' Manifestations of force which perish ' 
W What is this but the idea of One God. who breathed in the body 

of man the breath of life, and he became a living soul, as taught in the 
Scriptures ? Gen. ii., 7. . 



;40 The Philosophy of the Sup er natter al. 



This will answer as well as any other speculation 
to account for the perishableness of impersonal indi- 
viduality ; it is not satisfactory as to the future of 
personal individuality. Vast is the difference upward 
from an individual thing to an individual person. Any 
way, the theory of Aristotle, as reproduced by Aver- 
roes, proves too much. It admits that this Construct- 
ive Reason is one indivisible substance. But that 
indivisable substance is joined, in man, with individ- 
ual sensations. The individual sensations die, but 
the indivisible substance is reabsorbed into the eter- 
nal Pleroma called Nirvana. This indivisible sub- 
stance is individualized by being identified with hu- 
man sensations. That part of the Universal Soul 
which is in man is all in man that can have sensations, 
and therefore in these sensations is individual. But 
how, according to this theory, can it be immortal, if 
it be individual? If individuality destroys immor- 
tality, and immortality destroys individuality, then 
the constructive reason of Aristotle, and even the 
lauded Nirvana, of the Buddhist, cannot be, because 
it is both one and immortal. 

The derived cannot emanate from the underived in 
the sense of separation, as the Buddhists teach, for 
that would diminish the infinite ; nor can it be reab- 
sorbed into the underived as they teach, for that 
would increase the infinite. A square is still a square, 
whether you draw diagonals or circles within it. So 
the infinite as to itself \s> only the infinite ; its mani- 
festations are finite only as to themselves. The mfi- 
nite circumference focalizes in itself as a finite centre ; 
supernature centripetalizes into natural, and incon- 



Aristotle s Error. -ia^ 



ceivable Power is pictured in perceivable manifesta- 
tions. 

The error of both Aristotle and Averroes, was in 
antagonizing immortality and personal individuality 
It may be conceded that their theory was plausible 
as to impersonal individuality ; but the soul is immor- 
tal, according to science, not because it is an indi- 
vidual, but because it is a force, and so, supreme 
over matter. Above all other force, it has both indi- 
viduahty and conscious personality, and apart from 
these grand distinctions we know nothing of it. 

But let us go a little further, and see where this ex- 
tinction of all individuality and personality would 
land us. Suppose a soul-a part of the universal 
soul— steeped in all possible wickedness, to die in the 
midst of all its vileness, and with the loss of its indi- 
vidual sensations and personal identity, is reab- 
sorbed m the great abyss of Soul. The Buddhists call 
this abyss Nirvana. Now this part of the Universal 
Soul must be reabsorbed as it is, bad ; not as it is not, 
good. Ink, if you keep on dropping it lon^ enough' 
will finally blacken the ocean, and kill alf life con- 
tained m its illimitable depths. Suppose this absorp- 
tionto go on for countless ages, bad spirits after bad 
spirits taken into its very essence ; what must Nir- 
vana Itself become after feeding so long upon such 
tood, in spite of the good spirits, if any, that may go 
there too ? Its eternal accretions of evil make Nir- 
vana a hell. Conscious individuals cannot emanate 
from an unconscious Nirvana, nor can an uncon- 
scious Nirvana reabsorb conscious individuality. 
1 he less cannot produce the greater, or absorb the 
greater. 



342 The Philosophy of the Supernatural. 



In the soul's loss of its individuality and its ab- 
sorption into the Infinite, consists its horror. For, in- 
stead of a finite consciousness which it has lost, it ac- 
quires an infinite consciousness which is ever reab- 
sorbing evil. Every soul that it engorges brings in 
its evil, and makes Nirvana the cess-pool of the 
universe. 

In the philosophy of nature, vestigia nulla retrorsum 
—nature takes no steps backward. Heterogeneity 
never returns to homogeneity ; the effect never 
returns to its cause ; tlie stream never returns to its 
fountain. 

As life that is, is from all life before; 
So life that is, is life for evermore. 
Of life the whole, a part is all we know; 
From life, a part, to Ufe, the whole, we go. 



